Not all who wander are lost. Not all who are idealistic are fascist. Not all who are afraid of being forgotten are Ozymandias. And not all who work on open-source projects have the patience or will to keep slamming our horns together.
Honestly, we have better things to do with our time than worry about license compatibility. We're hackers. We shouldn't have to be lawyers. -Kyle H On 4/14/06, John L. Ries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I detect an attempt to propose a compromise (a sensible one, says me, and > I work for a proprietory software developer). For shame! :-) > > --------------------------| > John L. Ries | > Salford Systems | > Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | > or (435)865-5723 | > --------------------------| > > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Kyle Hamilton wrote: > > > On 4/14/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed > >>> and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the > >>> administrators who are just pretending to be adminstrators, and who are > >>> not real professionals. > >> > >>> Thank goodness that FreeBSD has the ports collection, this kind of > >>> attitude of everything binary only is sickening. > >> > >> I'm not saying binary only, I'm saying binary too!!! > > > > All the GPL requires is that binary distributions of a GPL'd software > > must include the source, or include a written offer to make the source > > available for a nominal copying charge; it also requires that the > > license be included so that the person licensing the program knows > > that they have that right, granted by the copyright holder of the > > program. It doesn't have any "obnoxious advertising clauses" if the > > source is included, and the file LICENSE is merely placed in the > > program's directory and doesn't have to be shown during installation. > > (However, most GPL'd software distributed in binary form, at least on > > Windows, does show it as part of InstallShield's "License" screen.) > > > >> > >>> I can hardly tell if I'm on an open source mailing list or a Microsoft > >>> product mailing list. One of the main strengths of using open source is > >>> that since it's open you can modify it and fix bugs - even the FSF and I > >>> agree on this - and you want to turn back the clock and have everyone > >>> dependent on binaries some CDrom distributor created? > >> > >> I'm not saying dependant, I'm saying available!!! > > > > As it stands, someone could -- AND HAS, historically -- take any > > version of any BSD-licensed software and make a binary-only > > distribution out of it, and refuse to make the source (and the changes > > that they've made) available. The purpose of the "obnoxious BSD > > advertising clause" was to ensure that the origin of the software was > > not ignored or denied. > > > > However, with open-source projects that are typically compiled and > > used by systems administrators and supported by support companies, the > > source for the library is as easy to include as the source for the > > program that uses the library. So... > > > > Why not an advertising clause exemption for non-binary (i.e., source) > > distributions, and binaries that accompany such source distributions? > > That would make the license GPL-friendly (thus increasing the ability > > for organizations to adopt open-source software without their lawyers > > getting anxious -- let's face it, free software, such as gcc, is a > > very significant subset of what open-source software has to offer) > > while at the same time allowing for the current system of proprietary > > binaries built from BSD+advert software to still maintain > > representation of the origin of the software. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > > User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org > > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
