On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 10:43 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:13 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 23:48 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > > Would you like free software licences to be respected or not? > > > > Java doesn't use a free software license. > > I know... my point is that if we want free software licences to be > respected (I do), then we should respect other licences as well. > > > Aside from religious aspects, it boils down to the fact that we need > > what we need. I have no problem paying for a product and sure, I'd like > > to see everything be open source but that's not likely to happen. In > > the mean time we do what we have to so we can function. It's a matter of > > survival not religion. > > So you're saying it's okay for corporations (or anybody, for that > matter) to violate free software licences if that's 'what they need'?
Of course it's not alright but you would naive to think it isn't happening. That may be a poor attitude... "Everybody else is doing it so why not me" ... but it's just how it is, right or wrong. > > > What about the deCSS stuff? How many out there are using this? > > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good money for a DVD and I can't watch it? > > > If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use > > of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? > > Sure, if you can't agree to the licence, just don't use it instead of > violating it and encouraging others to do the same. Okay I can understand this. Sure I'm playing the devils advocate here but in the real world this is the attitude. I think in this case it's more of a matter of lack of understanding. I NEVER thought to even regard the license. I guess it stems from using free software for so long that it never occurred to me to check if my motives were within the guidelines. So does the license permit you as the user to modify the package? If so, does it allow you to modify the package for another user? In other words... A friend calls and says he/she can't install this package. You log on and convert it to a .deb for them. Is this legal according to the license? Is it just a matter of redistributing the package? See the problem is that a license can't address every issue and when it tries, it becomes confusing as hell. So my question now becomes, to what extent can one go? Can I help a friend or can I even help myself? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
