 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de> writes:
> You should avoid the current GPL.
No, you shouldn't. :-)
At least not for the reason given here:
> It allows the FSF to change the license in the future and the
> license allows to apply future licenses to your code rather than the
> GPL license version you decided to use.
No, it doesn't - I think the relevant quote is this:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
So you just have to specify the version number if you think this is a
problem.
> Legally they could even change the GPL to give them exclusive
> copyright or other rights and you could do nothing about it.
Unless you've heard that from a copyright lawyer, I wouldn't even
believe a penny of it. The license specifically says, "Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version...". You
can't just take the copyright away from people without their
permission.
> Note that this provision is new and there was a lot of critzism when this
> new version of the GPL appeared (because RMS forced this condition into it).
> If you really want to use the GPL, use an older version without the "or any
> future GPL" clause.
It is the first time I've seen this brought up as a problem, but OTOH
I haven't been using Linux for more than 2-3 years. It really
surprises me. I guess the clause is in the license to make it possible
to update all licenses easily to respond to new usage situations -
after all the software world changes quickly.
Currently it is somewhat of a grey area whether using embeddable
remote-process components is the same as linking with a library or
not. A future version of the GPL will be able to clarify this issue.
It is in good hands in the FSF - those people really believe in what
they do.
(This is getting somewhat OT, but I don't think it would be fair not
to respond.)
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the short period of time I've been following the free software
> world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
> of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
> widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
> peacefully.
I think your looking at the tip of the iceberg
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <878### [at] bachcomposers> , Ole Laursen
<ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:
> It is in good hands in the FSF - those people really believe in what
> they do.
Sure, RMS has turned the FSF into a religious organization fighting
everything that doesn't follow his pure belief! And of course, he is the
only true god in this religion.
His recent rants include those against PHP4 as you find it on the license
page cited in this thread (because PHPs new license allows its developers to
sell plug-ins for it so they can make a bit of money). Many of his other
statements over the years are legally questionable and close to libel. He
has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody remembering the incident on some
Linux show a few years go, which was reported somewhere in these groups?
So yes, I am sure he is a trustworthy person!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> He has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody
> remember the incident on some Linux show a few
> years go, which was reported somewhere in these groups?
I've looked high and low for evidence of this incident, but not found it.
What happened, exactly?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> writes:
> > In the short period of time I've been following the free software
> > world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
> > of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
> > widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
> > peacefully.
>
> I think your looking at the tip of the iceberg
Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
common. Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> writes:
> Sure, RMS has turned the FSF into a religious organization fighting
> everything that doesn't follow his pure belief! And of course, he is the
> only true god in this religion.
It is true that FSF is a very political organization (and you're wrong
saying that RMS has turned it into that - it has always been that way,
after all, Stallman founded it!). But implying that he runs the show
like a dictator is something you really don't know about. I believe in
the free software model, but I don't worship Richard Stallman as a god
(Emacs is the only True god, remember?).
It's obvious that you don't like Stallman, but please don't let it
influence your attitude towards the free software model and GNU.
That's just silly. I don't hate you, and there's no reason you should
hate me because I find free software and the GPL attractive, is there?
> His recent rants include those against PHP4 as you find it on the license
> page cited in this thread (because PHPs new license allows its developers to
> sell plug-ins for it so they can make a bit of money).
I don't know anything about that case, but if you think you can get
RMS to agree to a license which would prevent the software from being
free, you're out of your mind. :-)
Besides, you're implying that RMS wants to prohibit people from
earning money - but that's wrong as long as the software stays free.
> Many of his other statements over the years are legally questionable
> and close to libel.
Which ones, may I ask? I think you'll find it difficult to find any.
Voicing your opinion about licensing issues aren't illegal, you know.
And I think your statement above is actually much closer to libel. :-)
> He has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody remembering the
> incident on some Linux show a few years go, which was reported
> somewhere in these groups?
I remember it (i.e. the report of it), and I agree it was silly. But he
still has the right to voice his opinion - after all the POV-Team
isn't sacred. I just wish he had sent a polite email instead. But I
hope it isn't going to affect the license decision if the license is
going to change for Povray 4. Punishing everyone because of one man's
silly deed is equally silly IMHO.
> So yes, I am sure he is a trustworthy person!
Richard Stallman is going to defend your rights to his death if you
choose the GNU GPL for your software. Do you question that?
But this thread is going OT. It was supposed to give advice on
licensing, not discussing RMS's merits.
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> writes:
> > He has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody
> > remember the incident on some Linux show a few
> > years go, which was reported somewhere in these groups?
>
> I've looked high and low for evidence of this incident, but not found it.
> What happened, exactly?
He pointed his thumb downwards as he passed the Povray booth.
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> He pointed his thumb downwards as he passed the Povray booth.
Grrr....! Down with Stallman!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ole Laursen" <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote in message
news:87l### [at] bachcomposers...
> hope it isn't going to affect the license decision if the license is
> going to change for Povray 4.
Why would it change? It's clear and effective. If it ain't broke, don't
fix it!
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> common. Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)
I did :-(
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
