On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:32:05PM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's
more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,
but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
ROTFL. I
but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
think you'll struggle to find people here who claim to defend freedom.
personally, i'm a believer and practitioner, i leave the defending
to the mis-guided and the hypocrites.
On 9/15/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.
Are you joking?
Where is you stand on ethics and freedom of software now?
Are you just another politician with great swelling words of emptiness?
I did sent a mail to misc@ and if you have
The only thing I know about this incident is that OpenBSD developers
are angry at someone I don't know, over events whose details I don't
know.
If they had approached me in a friendly way, asking me to look at the
issue and formulate an opinion, as a favor or for the good of the
community, I
On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Instead, however, they approached me with rage,
trying to blame the FSF for whatever happened. I don't have to take
that, and I don't have to cater to them.
It's more disturbing to me at 55 than it was at 35 that the free
software - open
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:34:36PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote:
The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human
being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive
to date) application of the Dada Engine.
I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;)
*giggle*
Rui
--
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:34:03PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release
of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers
is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours,
possibly days,
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 11:39 +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
than the GPL because the BSD
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 00:30 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
Obviously you have missed some of my commentaries on the GPL vs. BSD
philosophy. I don't hate the GPL. I dislike it compared to the BSD
alternative in general (I dislike milk chocolate compared to dark
chocolate, too, but either beats
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow
some users to loose freedom...
Hello again Rui,
the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
to loose freedom...
You make the point of using
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to the source code.
You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement
in the context of an argument about
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow
some users to loose freedom...
Hello again Rui,
the US. Over
Good luck doing so without any source code.
Teehee Teehee. No luck required.
It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence.
Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability.
The source tends to make assorted bugs vanish.
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without
Damien Miller wrote:
To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without
the freedom
to change a program
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to the source code.
That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more
importantly there
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:11:38AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Good luck doing so without any source code.
Teehee Teehee. No luck required.
It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence.
Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability.
The source tends to make assorted bugs
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to the source code.
You seem to be entirely missing the
as if that would make all past wrong
arguments become true.
Your subjunctive is derailed.
Tweedledee is getting tweedledummer and dummer
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Damien Miller wrote:
To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow
some users to loose
-
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Tony Abernethy
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Damien Miller wrote:
To: Rui
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Damien Miller wrote:
To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify it.
Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that
I've always had the impression that OpenBSD is NOT most people
They seem to be people who think it's actually worthwhile knowing what they
are talking about.
Seems like most people on this list think that you are incredibly dense and
Great attitude! As the main spokesperson for GNU this is exactly what
you should do. Run run run!!
You are in essence saying: go ahead break the law, I'll look the other
way. Bravo! I am totally impressed by your ethics ramblings.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:19PM -0400, Richard Stallman
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:19:39AM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is
On Saturday 15 September 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version
has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't
allow some users to loose freedom...
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to
BSD-licensed
| | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share
| | alike license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
|
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
| | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share
| |
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up
this topic.
It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm
at (someplace I definitely am not).
The question here is not
Nick Holland wrote:
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
GNUspeak:
These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
eleet because they read Slashdot, but to imply
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:48:46AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan that
the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct. He was so friendly
to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means. Freedom
for him did
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they
couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right
into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and
destroy from inside what they can't kill from outside.
Off
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the
spirit is established. I can play
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:42:13AM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit
| | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read:
| |
| | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
| | modification follow.
| |
| | 3. later on
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the
spirit
Seabra
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:13 AM
To: Paul de Weerd
Cc: Richard Stallman; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*
on distribution.
Do you seriously
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
than the GPL because the BSD
Seabra
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:51 AM
To: Jeroen Massar
Cc: Paul de Weerd; Richard Stallman; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007
Seabra
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:24 AM
To: Sebastien Carlier; Paul de Weerd; misc@openbsd.org;
Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva
: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
You
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
|
| The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
|
| You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
| than the GPL
On 9/14/07, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
GNUspeak:
These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
eleet
* Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-14 02:58]:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they
couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right
into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and
destroy
* Bob Beck beck [2007-09-14 08:14]:
* Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-14 02:58]:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Doesn't this simply sound like making free software developers
and users lose their freedoms and work they've authored? Who wins?
probably the people who want to sell
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:45PM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Your point is that the BSD license is a wrong because it gives people
too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in
your earlier message.
No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that, not
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
|
Fewer words, eh?
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
|
| The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
|
| You don't seem to
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| | On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| |
| | The
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I left them in my reply so you can
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
|
| The spirit of the GNU GPL
I have never claimed to be all that smart, so maybe I don't
understand something. But I am wondering what this squabble
over what this license says or what that license says is all
about. My understanding of copywrite law is that the author
of a work owns the copywrite. Therefore, that owner
Paul de Weerd wrote:
Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Where is the
Sebastien Carlier wrote:
So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is good freedom
and bad freedom, and that coercion is needed to allow good freedom
to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what
follows.
Total freedom without coercion is anarchy.
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
Free software: It's all about the price.
The rest of the talk about freedom, etc. is just trying to keep
them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
At least for an awful
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
to loose freedom...
You make the point of using BLOB so well, Thank you!
Looking forward to see you fight for
On 9/14/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastien Carlier wrote:
So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is good freedom
and bad freedom, and that coercion is needed to allow good freedom
to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what
On Friday 14 September 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| The spirit of the GNU GPL is to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:06:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I
can do to change that.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
R/
Write a wise saying and your name will live on forever. - Anonymous
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Paul de Weerd wrote:
Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes
Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)
-
starting
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
Free software: It's all about the price.
The rest of the talk about freedom, etc. is just trying to keep
them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
At least for an awful lot of 'em.
I have to point out that I have been told on
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:48:46AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
Free software: It's all about the price.
The rest of the talk about freedom, etc. is just trying to keep
them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
At least
On 9/13/07, Claudio Jeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FSF should take a deep breath and apologize to Reyk, apologize to
Theo, apologize to OpenBSD and apologize to the open source community at
large.
While reading this I got a mail that OpenSolaris released the adapted
version of our
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
GNUspeak:
These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
eleet because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
espouses these views is, quite
On 9/13/07, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
GNUspeak:
These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
eleet because they read Slashdot, but
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 12:32 -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:
Before you embark on your storm in a teacup, re-read (and re-read
again if you still don't get it) Nick's message. It's clear you
missed/misunderstood half of the points he was making.
1) I'm on the list, no need to CC me.
2) Like, duh,
2) Like, duh, I understand perfectly well what his point is: to slander
the GNU project and its users. I re-read the message several times
before replying.
out in the slashdot crowd, there is a trend to say anything neccessary
to get what they want, including explaining away actual law and
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under
the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under
the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not
entirely yours to start with.
Reyk's work (the replacement
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:07:38PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under
the GPL.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
| On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
| GNUspeak:
|
| These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
| views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
| eleet because they
Shawn K. Quinn Wrote:
You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just
sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free
software movement and the people that represent it.
GPL is just a license, hate is a too strong word for it.
We usually prefer to
| While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
| code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share
| alike license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
| perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
|
I have been very quiet on this for weeks now, but this really start to
piss me off at the highest level!
The bottom line is original work was stolen and copyrights are not
respected period!
Dance as much as you want around it, hide behind lawyers, word
definition twisted, false pretend,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Free as in Freedom! (but Free as in no monetary charge beats
the hell out of taking a stand)
Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge
is not the reason for the free software movement.
At least at one time (and
On 9/13/07, Jeremy C. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the printed, comb-binded, March 1987 Sixth Edition, version 18 of
the GNU Emacs Manual. It includes the 1985/1986 version of the GNU
Manifesto which says on page 244:
If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
On Thursday 13 September 2007 16:19, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license
under the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was
Rui,
as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright
questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. This will
give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed,
please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright
questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation.
Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you?
It's in every citizen's duty to know about the
Rui,
what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up
this topic. The question here is not Microsoft again OpenBSD, Linux or ...,
the point is that here nobody should give any interpretation without
licensed to practice law. So let the specialist decide on the topic.
Now if you'd advice people with something better than bullshit it might
be worth it. You have proven time and time again that you have no grasp
whatsoever on copyright law. You have absolutely no clue and it is my
duty to clarify this to the community.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:58:43PM +0100,
Steve Szmidt wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 16:19, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license
under the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
GNUspeak:
These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
views of the self-styled Linux nerds that think they are k00l and
eleet because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)
-
starting premise:
you can already use
94 matches
Mail list logo
