[nycbug-talk] Re: wasabi

[Marc Spitzer]

On 1/23/06, alex at pilosoft.com <alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> You are splitting hairs.
>
> As you should surely know, in GPL, free stands for freedom. Freedom of end
> user to modify and redistribute software. Yes, in fact, to achieve this
> freedom it is necessary to forbid *you* from denying this said freedom to
> them.
>
> Are we clear now?

yes they are dishonest people, that is how they nailed apple.

>
> > > 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.
> But it *IS NOT YOUR CODE*.  Capiche?

Never said it was all I said was I get to keep *my* code and that does
not happen under code infected with gpled code.  Is that clear enough?

>
> You base your product on my code, you have to distribute your code. And
> that's the way I like it. Because frankly, without *my code* there
> wouldn't be *your code*. So, IT IS NOT YOUR CODE.

Alex you are smart, but you are not that smart.  You see all I need to
do is reimplament your ideas in a clean room and I have bypassed all
of you controls.  It gets even better then that if you are disaplined
in your source control, I can build against your libs while I have a
seperate team reimplamenting them from scratch, to your api, and just
never leagally distribute the binary out side the company.  The when
my version of your ground breaking library is done I just rip out your
code and put in mine and ship all the closed source binaries I want
BWHAHAHHAA.  Yes folks a dogbert moment.

>
> > > 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.
> Please, be my guest.

I have and I use those definitions when I use the words, you
apparently do not when it suits your purpose not to.

>
> > > 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.
> Talking to you reminds me of trying to discuss things with Perry.
>
> -alex
>
>

marc

--
"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