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

somebody wrote:
> "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.

There's no such thing as "block" in copyright law.  Clearly, all the movies 
showing in the same movie theatre are functioning together "in a block", so 
of course they all have to come from the same movie studio, right?

> Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> their cars and sell it as a whole?

They don't enforce that with copyrights.

> If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.

Sure. But you can't enforce that with copyrights.

-- 
   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

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	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.

Good point.

There's something else I realized that's cognitively dissonant.

Software can't be free in the libre sense. "Free software" is just another 
word for "constrained people."  It's just as confusing to talk about 
software that's "free" as it is to confuse gratis with libre.

What do I mean?

Software doesn't make choices. More freedom means having more choices. 
Before the civil war, some people in this country had the freedom to own 
slaves. They could decide to own slaves, or not own slaves. After that, we 
took away their freedom to own slaves and instead gave the former slaves 
choices as to what they could do.

Software doesn't make choices. So software can't be "more free" or "less 
free". It can only affect the freedoms of people. The only way it makes 
sense to talk about "how free is this software/license" is to evaluate it 
with respect to what people actually do.

If I restrict the license to prevent you from doing certain things with the 
software I wrote, that doesn't make you more free. It makes you less free. 
It doesn't affect the software at all - the software is what it is and 
doesn't make choices. So the GPL is not as "free" as the MIT license, 
because it restricts the choices that someone other than the author can 
make. The author, of course, can make any choice he wants about his own 
original software - no argument there. But the authors who release their 
work under the GPL aren't making it "more free" than otherwise. They're 
simply saying "I'd rather not have improvements than have proprietary 
improvements, because the third level of improvements will be delayed." 
People releasing under the MIT license are saying "we hope you improve this, 
even if we decline to pay for the improvements."

-- 
   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

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> 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.

GPL was always a closed model of freedom.  Like someone previous analogy of it
being a country where you can spend your money in any way you like, as long as
it's spent *in* the country, not on foreign stuff.  It's the GPL playground,
where kids don't harm themselves as long as they're inside...

No one has ever stated otherwise and in any case, this closed model of freedom
is what, IMO, guarantees the continued evolution of GPL'd software at a faster
pace than leecher-friendly "more free" models.

Post a reply to this message