 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2008 13:41:24 -0400, Antti Arola <aea### [at] iobox fi> wrote:
>On 24.06. 2008, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Antti Arola <aea### [at] ioboxfi> wrote:
>>> when talking about "free" in relation to software, the FOSS crowd
>>> typically means "free as in speech" and not "free as in beer".
>>
>> I find that allusion completely flawed.
>
>And rightly so.
I don't know about that. I think that it encapsulates the idea
perfectly ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:14:25 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Except that you *cannot* reuse someone else's speech unless they
> explicitly authorized it (which most people don't do until you ask them,
> if then).
Under the GPL, that explicit authorization to reuse the code is part of
the license, subject to the terms of the GPL, which state that if you
modify it and distribute the modifications in binary form, you must also
distribute them in source form.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:47:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I dunno, basically what the GPL is saying is you're free to do with the
>> code what you want, but if you produce a modified version of the
>> program, you have to make the source available as well
>
> No. If you *distribute* a modified version of the binaries, you have to
> make the source available as well. Large difference.
That's what I meant to say - not produce, but distribute.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote in message <4860e303@news.povray.org>:
> I find that allusion completely flawed.
The point of "Free as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'." is not to
define what software freedom is, but to avoid a namespace collision.
English uses the word "free" for two very different notions: not having to
pay, or being able to do whatever one wants. Other Germanic languages seem
to have the same flaw, whereas Romance languages do not: in Latin
free-as-in-free-speech is spelled "liber" (think "liberty") while
free-as-in-free-beer is spelled "gratuitus" (think "gratis").
The point is to insist that free software is not just very cheap software,
but also software that gives you more rights than just downloading the
binary and using it at home.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:37:21 -0400, Nicolas George wrote:
> English uses the word "free" for two very different notions: not having
> to pay, or being able to do whatever one wants. Other Germanic languages
> seem to have the same flaw, whereas Romance languages do not: in Latin
> free-as-in-free-speech is spelled "liber" (think "liberty") while
> free-as-in-free-beer is spelled "gratuitus" (think "gratis").
Yep, some have taken to calling it "Libre" instead of "Free" in order to
make the distinction.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:14:25 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>
>> Except that you *cannot* reuse someone else's speech unless they
>> explicitly authorized it (which most people don't do until you ask them,
>> if then).
>
> Under the GPL, that explicit authorization to reuse the code is part of
> the license, subject to the terms of the GPL, which state that if you
> modify it and distribute the modifications in binary form, you must also
> distribute them in source form.
>
Precisely my point: under copyright law, you can't. Therefore, GPL
has nothing to do with free speech outside of FSF marketing slogans.
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhigMEACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9OLwCggRfT3/rtKsm+3CDOead46ucR
1XEAoJke6Cpjo5Z8JLCezobuXPvnKrHQ
=dDZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I dunno, basically what the GPL is saying is you're free to do with
>> the code what you want, but if you produce a modified version of the
>> program, you have to make the source available as well
>
> No. If you *distribute* a modified version of the binaries, you have to
> make the source available as well. Large difference.
>
More precisely, if you distribute the binaries *whether they are
modified or not*, you have to make the source available as well.
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhigQcACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9ApwCfTPMFiJoINH/BkYbRq9wdED/y
nicAn3zT7HwGsh0xZByRCM8JBJZFwvwr
=HQK2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:31:51 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> More precisely, if you distribute the binaries *whether they are
> modified or not*, you have to make the source available as well.
Ah yes, good point that. There's a couple of GPL infringement suits
regarding BusyBox that make that point.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:30:41 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Precisely my point: under copyright law, you can't.
You can't *what*, exactly?
You can use someone else's material under fair use doctrine (in the US at
least) and with attribution in most cases. *Some* organizations (most
recently and notably, the Associated Press) try to put additional
restrictions in place. That may not be enforceable.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Precisely my point: under copyright law, you can't.
> You can't *what*, exactly?
For example copy the contents of a book and include it in your own book,
no matter how much "free speech" that book contains.
> You can use someone else's material under fair use doctrine
Only up to a certain point. You can't, for example, copy entire books.
Not even in the US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
