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