"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

In article <87p### [at] bachcomposers>,
 Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:

> Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> common.

Doesn't make it right...and I'd prefer a license that doesn't make 
companies think they have to go to these lengths to use it while 
protecting their own code. As far as I'm concerned, they have the right 
to do whatever they want with their own code, unless it's a modification 
of CSDL that they are distributing. The GPL seems to be intended to 
force every piece of code to be GPL'd.


> Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)

No, but there's a very good reason for that... ;-)
I did pay for my copy of Mac OS X.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c54f538@news.povray.org>,
 "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> Why would it change?  It's clear and effective.  If it ain't broke, don't
> fix it!

It's also a bit more restrictive than it needs to be. The POV-Team has 
been considering a more flexible one for quite some time now:
http://www.povray.org/3.5-status.html

I've gotten the impression that the existing license is as restrictive 
as it is mainly because of the way some of the contributions to the 
source code have been made. People only gave permission for their code 
(which might also have been used in some commercial product) to be used 
in POV-Ray, so releasing it under an Open Source license is impossible, 
another reason for the 4.0 rewrite. However, this is just my personal 
recollection, not an official statement...

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message

In article <87l### [at] bachcomposers> , Ole Laursen 
<ola### [at] hardworkingdk>  wrote:

>> 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 been kicked out of various discussions because of the way he
expresses his opinion.  At the very least his gesture is one example, so I
am very well covered!

>> 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.

His gesture has several implications.  Back in the days of the Roman Empire
the gesture could mean a death sentence.  See it whatever way you want, but
threatening physical injury (also he probably did not mean it this way) is
no longer free expression of an opinion.

    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

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> [...]

But it should be mentioned that there are also more agreeable persons at
the FSF, i have heard Bob Chassell in the past and found his speeches
quite objective and free of unnecessary religious doctrines.

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> > Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> > common.
> 
> Doesn't make it right...

No, not at all, I was just attacking a flawed argument. :-)

> and I'd prefer a license that doesn't make companies think they have
> to go to these lengths to use it while protecting their own code. As
> far as I'm concerned, they have the right to do whatever they want
> with their own code, unless it's a modification of CSDL that they
> are distributing. The GPL seems to be intended to force every piece
> of code to be GPL'd.

Yes, and since you feel like that, GPL'ing your work would of course
be nonsensical. (LGPL is an entirely different matter though, but
still it's your choice.) I'm glad you seem to be convinced to use a
license which makes your software free - the rest is just details
(some of which it is worth getting right, such as being
GPL-compatible, but mostly just details).

> > Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)
> 
> No, but there's a very good reason for that... ;-)
> I did pay for my copy of Mac OS X.

It seems I'm not too lucky with my examples...

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message