 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Jul-08 9:54, Nicolas George wrote:
> andrel wrote in message <487### [at] hotmail com>:
>> No, it is used in various subscenes differently.
>
> That is true, but most uses differ only on details, and agree on the major
> points, and in particular the right to re-distribute modified versions for a
> fee.
I wasn't aware of that, i.e. I have apparently not been a member of a
major subscene of computer users. So, for these people POV-Ray is not a
free program because there is no way you can sell it? Reminds me of that
story that Obama is not black because his parents are born in Africa.
Absolutely counterintuitive but true for a particular definition of
'free' resp. 'black'. Well, you live and learn.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 16:06:48
Message: <487bb1d8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that, i.e. I have apparently not been a member of a
> major subscene of computer users. So, for these people POV-Ray is not a
> free program because there is no way you can sell it?
To them "free" means "you can sell it for a price". And they don't see
any contradiction in that.
Anyways, another issue they have is that you can't take portions of
the POV-Ray source code and use them in a different program.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas George
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 16:46:35
Message: <487bbb2b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote in message <487bb1d8@news.povray.org>:
> To them "free" means "you can sell it for a price". And they don't see
> any contradiction in that.
If you say it that way "You are not forbidden to do it", that makes more
sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 16:48:45
Message: <487bbbad@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:06:48 -0400, Warp wrote:
> To them "free" means "you can sell it for a price". And they don't see
> any contradiction in that.
There isn't an inherent contradiction in that unless you insist that
"free" means "at no cost". Words do have more than a single definition,
typically. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59
Message: <487bbc6e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
Tell that to the FSF.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 17:13:26
Message: <487bc176$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
>
> Tell that to the FSF.
Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 17:33:34
Message: <487bc62e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
> >
> > Tell that to the FSF.
> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree with it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alexandre DENIS
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 18:21:07
Message: <487bd153@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> So what exactly is your problem??? - I can tell you: You did not _read_,
> but just want to cause arguments about the definition of "free software".
>
> *plonk*
This kind of answer is not likely to attract new developers.
You may agree or not, but nowadays, most free (as in "of no cost")
developers contribute to free (as defined by FSF) projects, or at least to
FSF-friendly projects.
I guess POV-Team doesn't need new developers.
-a.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 18:48:44
Message: <487bd7cc$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:33:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
>> >
>> > Tell that to the FSF.
>
>> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
>
> I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree with
> it.
So you don't think there's any definition of "free" that applies other
than "free of cost"? Interesting interpretation of the English language,
that....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The whole thread is worse than a headache. The program is free.
If you need money, get a job and contribute to society.
Profit motive is republican, shallow, expected and predictable.
Principles, the rules you choose to live by, are the only thing that can support
ideal reality. Law can't do it. Threat of, or even the ACTUAL, torture can't do
it. For some it is too much to care about or even understand the concept of
right and wrong. For that, the gods themselves seem to have no solution.
Someone used the term, "Get a clue". What he said.
aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
