[nycbug-talk] Re: wasabi
mspitzer at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 17:55:41 EST 2006
On 1/23/06, alex at pilosoft.com <alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > > > the GPL on your next subway ride and then tell me why I'm wrong.)
> > > This is becoming a flamewar.
> > Reading the licence we are discussing is grounds for this atempt at
> > taking this whole thead off topic by accusing Ike of starting a flame
> > war? I think you *have* read the gpl but just dont want other people to
> > do so. Why is that? Personally I think it is more of a comunist
> > license, ie touch it and you loose most/all of your property rights on
> > what you wrote that touched it. Face it the license has cooties.
> Yes, GPL is infectious. You want to build your software on my free
> software? your software will have to be free too. You don't like it? well,
> then bugger off and don't touch my software.
Your GPLed software is not free for any applicable definition I have
come across in a dictionary. The FSF and now you are claiming
something that is contradicted by trying to compair the word "free",
as used in standard english, to the draconian encumberances inforced
by the GPL.
> Note the touches = "build on" not merely "use".
> Note that this is not that much different from a proprietary license that
> doesn't give you royalty-free redistribution rights. You license a library
> (say, report writing). Now, for each 'derived product' (as in, complete
> package with the report writer compiled in) you are obligated to pay
> royalty. And even if you have royalty-free distribution rights, they
> usually come with strings attached. So, all restrictive licenses are
> infectuous by design.
that is not so at all. the gpl makes you loose rights over your code.
commercial licencing allows me to keep rights over mine. And if you
want more rights give me more money.
> GPL restricts you (as user of my software) from restricting freedom of
> *others* to enjoy fruit of our combined labor (mine as original developer
the above sounds like it came from 1984.
> and your as contributor). Again, in my eyes (as a person who writes
> software), its a good thing. For someone who is a user of my software, who
> wants to profit from my work, its not a good thing.
You really need to look up the word free and freedom, in a non fsf dictionary.
> BSD is not infectious - because it is really limitation of liability plus
> release into public domain, not really a license.
No it is a licence, just a free one.
"We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to
form into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it
can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion,
inefficiency and demoralization."
-Gaius Petronius, 1st Century AD
More information about the talk