On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> But you *did* say "free software licenses according to the FSF". But
> that's precisely what I was objecting to -- your implication that the
> FSF defines "free software" and that nobody else's opinion matters.
Please stop, and think about what you're
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
> > argument), why do you value it?
>
> On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
> I value.
Okay, then I hereby pr
David Johnson writes:
> Practicality leads to moral results, and morality leads to practical results.
> Open Source is free and Free Software is open. There is no need to divide
> this community up into factions.
Quite true. However, we don't want the actions of bearded radicals to
scare th
John Cowan writes:
> As for your second point, it is also quite unclear from the license,
> at least to me (IANAL), just who it is that has the burden of persuasion
> on the subject of Deployment. Must Apple prove that my use was
> commercial, or is it up to me to prove that it was not?
True
Russell Nelson wrote:
> In the real world, with judges, lawyers, and courts, Apple would have
> to 1) discover that you have used it personally as an employee, and 2)
> prove that you did this wearing your employee hat, as opposed to the
> personal use of your work computer.
It is not clear to
John Cowan writes:
> One must be careful about the meaning of "distributed". AFAICT, if I
> (a Reuters employee) download APSLed code and make a Modification to it
> solely for my own use qua employee, not distributing it within Reuters
> at all, that is not Personal Use, it is still Deployed
On Monday 01 October 2001 17:00, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
> > argument), why do you value it?
>
> On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
> I value.
T
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
> argument), why do you value it?
On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
I value.
> > I don't agree. I think that there are problems with it.
>
> Lik
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> This is a very good summary.
See? I'm not out to demonize you :)
> The FSF argues that, without the social/ethical committment to free
> software, their committment to open source changes like the wind.
Well, more accurately (IMO), the FSF argues th
"Karsten M. Self" wrote:
>
> on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:51:53PM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Martin Konold writes:
> > > According to RMS the only way to become free software aka "GPL
> > > compatible" is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for
> > > conversion/reli
Everyone breath for a second.
My understanding of David's original post was
to assert that "open" and "free" were meaningless
distinctions. because of Adam Smith's
notion of Invisible Hand, it didn't matter
where you start, you end up at effectively
the same end point. Therfore there is no
nee
Russell Nelson wrote:
> RMS is up-front about his objection to the APSL
> [...] for the requirement to publish the source code to deployed
> modifications. Note that the APSL is not talking about private
> modifications, but instead modifications which have been distributed
> within an enterpri
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
> RMS is up-front about his objection to the APSL. It is not for any
> restrictions on the distribution of the software, but instead for the
> requirement to publish the source code to deployed modifications.
I hadn't previously looked up Stallman's views on A
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> More appropriate on technical and pragmatic grounds, if I've read the
> essays right :)
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
> > There's another possibility: that RMS pulled his objection to the
> > APS
Martin Konold writes:
> According to RMS the only way to become free software aka "GPL compatible"
> is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to
> GPL.
I believe this is an accurate statement. Since the GPL requires that
GPL'ed software have no extra restrictions
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> It just so happens that the people involved with the OSI are
> *motivated* by the social/ethical concerns, but try to present the
> pragmatic issues in order to convince people. They are not trying to
> be pragmatic, they are simply accepting that other people are
"Free" is the right word for some people,
because free software is right for their situation.
"Open" is the right word for some people,
because open is right for their situation.
The conflict arises when people confuse
"what is right for them"
and mistakenly think they have figured out
"what
On Saturday 29 September 2001 22:20, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> The FSF and OSI distance themselves from one another politically, and
> advocates of one over another disagree, but NO ONE says the things you
> are ascribing to them.
Double checking to make sure I'm not getting signals crossed fro
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Martin Konold wrote:
> According to RMS the only way to become free software aka "GPL compatible"
> is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to
> GPL.
This is factually incorrect. RMS does not require free software to be
GPL compatible. As he f
nOn Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Hi,
> Certainly, there are OSD-compliant licenses which are not free software
> licenses according to the FSF - accordingly, claiming that pragmatic
> open source is every bit as free, and social free software is every bit
> as pragmatic, can not be
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
> You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The "invisible hand"
> is the forest.
No, I'm seeing hills, and you're calling it a forest.
The FSF and OSI distance themselves from one another politically, and
advocat
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> No, the argument is that proprietary software is immoral and unethical.
Sorry, I did not intend to make expansive arguments about the sum total of
motivations. I was specifically referring to the idea that software
licenses should not restrict us fro
tware is the answer on social grounds.
You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The "invisible hand" is the
forest. Certainly the FSF lists pragmatism as one of the virtues of Free
Software, and the OSI lists sharing and community spirit among the features
of Open Source. But th
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
>
> > back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on
> > both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism.
>
> I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
> back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on
> both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism.
I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
was unpragmatic, or that a pragmatic person
Nations", Adam Smith observed a phenomena he
called the invisible hand. The phenomena is that the actions of selfish
individuals interact to create altruistic results for the group. In economic
terms, immoral grocers feed poor families just as much as moral grocers do.
In software licensing
26 matches
Mail list logo