On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:41PM +0300, Arik Baratz wrote:
>
> But there are other implications to this form of activism. Soon some guy who doesn't
> like some country will add a clause to the O/S license banning use in that
> country... Not a good precedent.
>
The owner of a project is entitled to give whatever license he wants.
He cannot, however, claim that after prohibiting SCO to use the product
the license is GPL compliant. It is not.
That is why I did not mention licenses. The GPL is great. We should keep
it. And the GPL does not have a built in "Black List" feature. Which is
good.
I was talking about the myriad of small details which makes a project
like gnome or kde or apache compile well on SCO. If the gnome or kde or
apache stop accepting patches to clean the compilation on SCO or even
tear out support for SCO compilation from their ./configure.in scripts
there is nothing against that in the GPL... The GPL does not oblige the
author to support platforms he does not want to and this WITHOUT
modifying the license.
People who wish, for instance, to create an open source project which
specifies that Israelis cannot use it are welcome to it. I have nothing
against them except that I would not join any project which has such a
black list in it's license and I hope others won't either. In any case
I would fight against this kind of project trying to classify itself as
free source. A free source should have the same rights for everyone. Even
the detested SCO. It does not mean that free source developers should
keep on bypassing SCO weirdness using their configure.in scripts and
makefiles while the SCO CEO is on the war path with them. Let SCO do
that - if they can!!!
Cheers,
Mark
=================================================================
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]
