 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: This GPL stuff is getting ridiculous
Date: 31 Jan 2009 17:11:22
Message: <4984cc8a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:20:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, I don't think I am. You can use my code under my terms. How does
>> that contradict anything I've said so far?
>
> That I can use your code for commercial gain if I just link it in
> without changing it?
>
> You said
> """
> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
> program has to be GPL'ed.
> """
>
> Then you said
> """
> If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
> wishes about the use of the code.
> """
>
>> Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se. I don't see
>> choice as a problem. :-)
>
> It wouldn't be, if choice was really that easy.
Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.
Well, no. But that's not what's under discussion. Your use of "use" is
confusing. And plug-ins don't cut-and-paste[1] code from the system they're
plugging into.
[1] Hi Warp! ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
You're an evil man. ;)
BTW, asking me won't do any good. How about handling these questions to the FSF
so they can debunk or reformulate their terms or wait and test for yourself once
the architecture is in place?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
> another compiler under another license.
Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
>
> You're an evil man. ;)
One thing I *am* good at is breaking other peoples' assumptions. I can
usually crash someone else's program (while it's underdevelopment, of
course) within minutes of testing it.
> BTW, asking me won't do any good. How about handling these questions to the FSF
> so they can debunk or reformulate their terms or wait and test for yourself once
> the architecture is in place?
Feel free to pass them on. I hereby relinquish any copyright in those ideas
or their wording. :-) I don't feel the need to help them make their software
more closed, personally. (I'm also unlikely to ever be affected by it
either way. This is all brain-games for me. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
>> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
>> another compiler under another license.
>
> Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.
Yes, but you could fork it, remove the parts that force plug-ins to be GPLed
before they run, and then distribute the new fork under GPL.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
> >> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
> >> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
> >> another compiler under another license.
> >
> > Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.
>
> Yes, but you could fork it, remove the parts that force plug-ins to be GPLed
> before they run, and then distribute the new fork under GPL.
That's what I was talking about in context. However, long discussions like this
are more likely to induce bad phrasings due to mental exhaustion and I
apologize.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:22:29 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.
>
> Well, no. But that's not what's under discussion. Your use of "use" is
> confusing. And plug-ins don't cut-and-paste[1] code from the system
> they're plugging into.
That's what I've been discussing all along, not in the context of the
plugin discussion. I agree that the GNU folks are not in the right here
with their treatment of GCC plugins.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4983bdac@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>>> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
>
>> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
>
> Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
> this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
> from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
> a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.
Perfect! Now you finally get it!
You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.
--
Tolkien Ring is the promised LAN for hobbits.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
