On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 02:45:37PM +0200, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> OH>> I heard from some people that the yast license is pretty 'sly' and some
> OH>> bad things about it. I prefer GPL not because I want to see its source or
> OH>> modify it (Although maybe it could be nice), but because I want to be free
> OH>> to use it.
>
> GPL has nothing to do with usage, and can not, because copyright law, on
> which GPL bases, controls distribution, not use. Nothing in the copyright
> law can prevent you to do anything with the text of the book, but it can
> prevent you from redistributing the text.
> BTW, RMS is very eager to change this, and make GPL control the use too
Your opinions are yours, of course, but I think you are
misrepresenting RMS here. He has always objected to limiting the use
of software. Consider his recent review of the new APSL (Apple Public
Source License) at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html :
At a fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became
accepted, would stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims
to be able to set conditions for simply *running* the software. As I
understand it, copyright law in the US does not permit this, except
when encryption or a license manager is used to enforce the
conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt at making
a free software license resulted in an extension of the effective
range of copyright power.
> - to prevent "loopholes" such as separating GPLed code inside
> proprietary application and running it as independant module, without
> redistributing it or even including it in the proprietary product
> distribution. However nice it seems for "free software", it's very very
> dangerous move. But this is another topic...
>
> OH>> Sure. There are more nice licenses such as the BSD license.. But
> OH>> most of the other licenses are not as free as GPL is, so I
>
> GPL is much less free that BSD. In fact, GPL is the most restrictive open
> source license known to me - it not only mandates you to opensource all
> your changes or additions to the code, it specifically prescribes under
> what license you should do it. And, as I said, RMS wants to make it even
> more restrictive. That's "beneficial for specific group of software
> developers" - to which you may or may not to belong, but not "free".
>
> OH>> Besides, you talk like the whole open source community is
> OH>> sponsored by these companies. I know very few open source
> OH>> projects which are sponsored.
>
> Oh, well, so you know not much. That's nice you realize it. Next step is
> to try and know more.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
