On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > | > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed > | > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share > | > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's > | > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the > | > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by > | > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. > | > > | > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD > | > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant > | > bits, but I'll quote them again : > | > > | > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether > | > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that > | > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the > | > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their > | > rights. > | > | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit > | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: > | > | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and > | modification follow. > | > | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this > | License" > | > | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste > | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) > > First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this > spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this > spirit in the first place ?
You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to... I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not just those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is to force passing on the same rights. You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd notion that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU GPL as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by the GNU GPL. Responsabilities too. > It's in the license, right ? The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text, and it clearly says "the precise terms follow". Don't ignore them when it's more convenient to you. > I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally > wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under > so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. > > "You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and > totally ignore the spirit." > > You're not about free software. Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify, as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and Free Software is merely a tool to empower people. You don't have any problems with people locking other people out of code, but when it's to ensure everyone has access, except you because *you* don't want to, then it's all bad. This is shallow, IMHO. Fortunately I value OpenBSD because it's Free Software with a lot of technical merit, and not for words like yours. I even got the company I work at to buy CD's (sometimes they don't). To finalise, the FSF has said it doesn't want anything to do with this polemic, so I don't see the point in adding Richard to the cc except to make a fool of yourself. Bye -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
