are participating here.)
You can't "reduce the heat level" by asking. It just doesn't work that way.
--
Glenn Maynard
on can contribute, and encourages people to merge posts that
shouldn't be merged to reduce their post count, breaking threading and
making conversations even harder to follow.
--
Glenn Maynard
rd, renaming it to the "GlennHTTP standard" and
making all sorts of changes to it. This type of restriction is explicitly
allowed by DFSG#4.
Technical standards should be (and are--once 2004-003 kicks back in,
at least) held to the same standards of freedom as everything else in
Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
s create an independant work
which is easily confused with that work (eg. fork sendmail and call
it "Postfix"), and that trademarks are the correct approach. So, it
seems to make sense that DFSG#4 allow implementing change-of-name
requirements via trademark.
I'm not certain about any of this, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
s documents (and so unimportant that Debian should actually
make an exception to allow it, with all of the slippery slopes and
other messes that would entail).
--
Glenn Maynard
Attempting to use license texts as a lever
to shove other non-free stuff into Debian is not going to work (that's been
tried many times already).
With everything else, Debian has a choice--and GR 2004-003 shows that Debian
has, in fact, made that choice: to not include non-free standards documents.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble
--
Glenn Maynard
uch effort to fix
this. Given their stonewalling with the GFDL, there'd be no hope of the
FSF changing this with the GPL, either.)
--
Glenn Maynard
> though it would if it were software).
>
> It's a really poor attempt, and doesn't represent my beliefs at all.
Or anyone else, as far as I know. (I doubt Craig actually believes this
himself.)
--
Glenn Maynard
-free is not a statement of fact, it is merely a statement of opinion.
Invariant sections can not be modified. The DFSG requires that modification
be allowed. QED.
(tip: if the strongest response you have is to point at license texts, don't
bother)
--
Glenn Maynard
, since your flaming rants aren't convincing anyone, and
I've never expected to convince you directly.) Once you understand that
people can, in fact, rationally disagree with you, you might have more success
in debate.
--
Glenn Maynard
x27;t really have to, since your flaming rants aren't convincing anyone, and
> > I've never expected to convince you directly.)
>
> a lame excuse for dropping out of an argument that you're losing.
You can convince yourself (but only yourself) of that if it'll make you sleep
better. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
age, but the upstream author says
"Debian's cool, don't bother renaming it". What does Debian do? The
license--even without the special permission--is DFSG-free. The
additional permission doesn't change that. Debian can either accept
the additional permission and not rename it (but getting an "unfair
advantage against forks" in the process), or rename it anyway. What
happens?
--
Glenn Maynard
to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")
This is false. I suggest you read the rest of the thread to see why,
or any of the other three or four hundred times people have tried to
convince us that Free Software is hopeless and we should just give
up by claiming that license documents can't go in main.
--
Glenn Maynard
invariant sections. See:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
for a summary of a previous time this was discussed to death. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
ller.
Isn't this being done upstream, anyway, for GPL-compatibility purposes?
--
Glenn Maynard
code within a program that makes
optional use of a non-free library can go in main, while a program consisting
soley of that code must go in contrib.
--
Glenn Maynard
opinion is not interesting; and it would let
people get an idea if a lot of people are voting based on rationale
that has been discussed and disproven (eg. "vim is huge" and "vim
differs too much from vi").
(I wish people had to write a few paragraphs justifying their votes
for government elections. Votes in essay format. One can dream ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ceptive ones ("vim is several megs!"--vim-runtime is, but not
vim-tiny). So the poller would still have the task of filtering the
summaries for these. But doing that without bias is probably a lot
easier than writing unbiased summaries for an opinion a person disagrees
with.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
orms Debian supports?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
swer the question "do we want to require source for firmware
programs?"--and change the DFSG if it disagrees with the project's
conclusion--than to ask "do we want to pretend firmware isn't a program,
so we can ignore the DFSG's source requirements?"
--
Glenn Ma
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:23:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think trying to declare firmware to be "not a program", in order to
> > permit it in main without including source, is contrived; if
s with three paragraphs that seemed like a reply to
someone arguing "documentation isn't software, so it doesn't have to be
free", but nobody was doing that.
> --
> ksig --random|
er? :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:41:03AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Nobody is lying. A "lie" is an untruth made with the intent to
> > deceive. Debian doesn't try to hide these unmodifiable lic
FSG#4 patch
exception, which allows works in Debian which effectively prohibit code reuse).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
recently[1]; the only
software named was gnuplot, and "maybe" TeX. (TeX led into a discussion
that didn't reach much conclusion, except that we're not really sure.)
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
only
people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
be CC'd.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> > automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> >
u're saying (in practice,
going from my experience on lists) "this person should receive CCs
on future followups". If someone goofs and puts a name in the CC
list that shouldn't be there, he's going to get copies that he doesn't
want. MFT doesn't change that.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
plies) is irrelevant. I
agree, as well, that MFT does not solve world hunger.
As far as I can see, you've not named any problems that would be caused
by list software automatically creating MFT headers indicating the list's
policy. I could hypothesize some, but they're along simi
ian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent
> are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or
> to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list
> forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate.
My original suggestion was that it inc
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:45:47PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> > It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> > than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
>
> Why? MFT isn&#
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:58:35PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
> > replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, whi
personal preferences. The
options, as I see them, are "use the header" or "don't receive CCs on mail".
"Expect others to do extra work for your sole benefit because you refuse
to use M-F-T" is not a reasonable option.
I agree that it would have been better as &qu
on't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
with it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ware they support on the market at a given time?
Once the hardware's out there, it's out there--I don't think the case of
"all devices with firmware in flash have been tracked down and destroyed,
so we have to move this driver back to contrib" is a serious worry.
--
Gl
non-free blobs belong in
main" debate, this argument seems like a non-issue to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 04:22:22PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:01:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> In many cases, the firmware may be provided by the hardware vendor in
> >> some form, so we can just use the
layed as if it's SJIS.
Again, the locale is irrelevant here, though some software might use
the locale to determine the default.
--
Glenn Maynard
d "his" for an unspecific third party assumes
nothing about his gender. Your objections to [1] and [2] are patently
false. (Your rewritings, arbitrarily switching between plural and singular
forms, are clumsy.)
There are useful things for Debian to spend time on. This is not one of
them.
7;s untagged or mistagged; in practice--for
my own use--that's entirely email and web pages, and everything else is on
the fringe. Oh, and file editors, since we'll all be receiving plain text
files in our respective country's legacy encoding for the forseeable future.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cense. We don't care about the
program itself; only about the license (and whether it includes
clarifications).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we
evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's
intent or beliefs (except as embodied in their license), so it seems to
not matter if we evaluate those licenses in the context of a particular
program or
e some obvious cases, but I'm just having
trouble thinking of any.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d it?
I don't know about you, but I detected a bit of sarcasm ... :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:06:10AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 10 February 2005 10.39, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Adrian von Bidder:
> > > what type of traffic do you expect on the list
> > > when consultants are force-fed it?
> >
> > I don&#x
tupid. The very phrasing was lightly humerous, not an attack.
(I don't know why I'm replying seriously to a nameless top-poster with
an email address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", though. My bad. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd there's no References: header, which
makes threads much harder to follow, and will probably get you ignored by
many people since your posts won't appear in the normal flow of the thread.
(I actually do point them out in the hope that you'll fix them. If you
don't care enoug
to find them all.
[1] before anyone starts talking about "fair use", please review past
discussions on the topic, which sum to "many jurisdictions have no
notion of fair use, so Debian can not rely on it"
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Standards documents (eg RFCs) are useful references, even if you can't
> change them. Like when writing software that needs to implement the
> standards.
Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't chan
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:38:24AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
>
> So are laws?
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. My point
> protocols which is not software.
Er, protocols which are implemented, typically, by software. RFCs are
documentation for the software implementing them.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
> interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
Uh, *this* sounds like a flame to me. Please be civil.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe&q
x27;m under the
general impression that "fair use" itself is the peculiarity, not the lack
of it, or at least that the implementation of fair use in different places
differs too widely to base anything off of the US's particular version.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
ches people that they need non-free
things". Here's a tip: it's a *good thing* to teach people that they
still need non-free things, if it's the truth; it just might inspire
people to create free versions, or convince the FSF to free up their works.
That's a fundamental reaso
non-essential (non-license-
text) pieces that *can't be modified at all*, or even removed. (I find it
continually disappointing that people will actually argue that completely
invariant, untouchable text is "free enough"; I have to wonder why they're
even here.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
case you'll hear a loud laugher.
Maybe, since you conspicuously omitted the "and therefore" part in
case 2; the practical problems with invariant sections have been well
explored. (I'm not going to waste my time digging up discussions about
them for you, since you'll j
t helps fund programmers, to allow them to continue their work;
that's in "user's interests", isn't it?)
> Also, there are certain things I have posted to Debian lists under my
> own name that turned into really unpleasant boat anchors to past points
> of view that are no longer relevant.
If your position changes over time--as most people's do, on various
issues--you can simply say so. "I used to think that; I changed my mind."
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd why a given restriction is non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nion who wants to bring it to discussion
can do so, on d-project. I just don't believe there's any value in
polls like this. If you have a defensible position, replying to a
poll won't do it justice.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ted on lists,
in the course of discussions, and extracting those is probably the best
bet--except that the particularly well-thought-out responses are buried
among a couple thousand other mails ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect that a lot of coders with too much time on their
> hands should get back to releasing sarge, and let the OSI take care of
> the politics.
I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible
he person placing restrictions on users to show
that the restriction does not impede freedom. Restrictions are not
Free by default; they must be proven, and the few people claiming
invariant sections are "free" have so far utterly failed to do so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:33:52AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
> >remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
>
> I can't tell if yo
eem categorically incapable of responding to my arguments,
confirming my earlier observation. You're also replying to a
civil, honest mail rudely and derisively. I'm not sure what you
think you're contributing with this attitude, or who you believe
will be convinced by it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L (at least without first removing the preamble).
(I see no reason that the allowance of invariant text in licenses should
be extended to anything else, since nothing except for legal text is
fundamentally unavoidable. People keep trying to use legal texts as a
wedge to allowing more and more restric
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:49:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > The preamble can be removed, but not from other people's works; when
> > the GPL is attached to a work, the preamble is a full-blown invariant
> > section.
>
> Can't one just l
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:53:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > [...] GPL#1 says [...]
>
> GPL#1 is for verbatim only. Releasing under a new licence is a modification.
> Please illustrate how the GPL does not follow DFSG or leave this.
GPL#2 is for modifie
hor can do anything with it beyond distribution. The FSF
calls that "software hoarding".
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nse says "distribution and modification for free, but
if you distribute this one source file (out of thousands), pay me $100"
is non-free if we can't delete that source file.
[1] Tangent: even so, patch clauses effectively prohibit code reuse, one
of the most fundamental benefits
ial merit to
> allowing the use of these restrictions in some fashion, so please quit
> saying we failed when we really haven't.
You havn't shown how "preventing the suppression of unpopular views or
opinions" is a goal important enough to abandon the ability to modify,
maintain and reuse works.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lains a lot."
I responded to the text I quoted, allowing the discussion--for what it's
worth--to continue. The above text, as I noted, does not.
> Is it, or is it not acceptable to trade a decrease in the rights to
> modify GFDL content in exchange for knowing that the content you have
> received reflects the author's original intent more authentically?
No.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"right to see the original work", and I've never even heard
of such a thing, I suspect it'll hit that point very soon. I hope that's
close enough to "agreeing to differ" to satisfy you. :)
Changing the subject line is futile in conversations spanning multiple
subth
ith the principle being espoused?
Yes. I don't have a distaste fundamentally with "letting users see
the original work", but rather with sacrificing other freedoms to do
so, and I don't think that's a goal that can be furthered without such
sacrifices. I don't think the trade is acceptable.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:52:17PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL is about making sure everyone that receives the work receives
> > permission to do things to it (modify, distribute, and so on), and
> > mak
ity who
voted for this--I can't be bothered to argue about that--but as you do,
be aware of who it is that's flaming ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
further.
If you believe Debian's voting process is flawed, lobby to change it;
otherwise, accept its results.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
> >
> > "1. Debian will remain 100% free
> >
> > We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
The option did
> not make the 3:1 supermajority needed to win, but it definitely did make a
> simple majority.
As far as I can tell, the results of 2004-004 just indicate that people would
rather lower Debian's standards than not release at all, not that they actually
want to lower Debia
read it. There's no point to list CCs if everyone only retains copies
to the lists they happen to be subscribed to--all you're doing is
making the conversation mysteriously vanish for people on d-user.
--
Glenn Maynard
--- Begin Message ---
debian-user dropped, because I don't rea
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:43:47PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >>Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
> >>>
> >>> "1. Debian will r
oncerning themselves
with the issue. The people that wish to take up this particular battle
(eg. that of Free Software, including its documentation) and gain a full
understanding of the issues and arguments do so, to the benefit of everyone
else.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
;s actually very jurisdiction-
dependent, and that the US's concept of "fair use" is somewhat unusual, but
I don't know any details.)
If a license is only free as a result of "fair use", then it's not free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
scuss having the trademark policy changed
is not the BTS, and you can attempt to take steps to change the situation
if you like. However, in the meantime the RC bug is still correct and
should be fixed, or (if you refuse to adhere to both the Social Contract
and the license on the Official Use logo), remain open.
--
Glenn Maynard
's the restriction
itself that matters.
(Of course, it may be unenforcable, but that's a separate issue.)
--
Glenn Maynard
"the legal right to swamp competing
companies with frivelous lawsuits".
I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal
right" that needs to be protected.
(I do believe that potential abuses need to be explored carefully, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 07:17:15PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
> > I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal
> > right" that needs to be protected.
>
> What about hardware patents?
Well, a patent probably doe
principle, and whether the existing clauses have room for
abuse (making them non-free in practice).
[1] https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
(Not that I'm endorsing this license--I believe it's non-free in a couple
other ways.)
--
Glenn Maynard
self due to constant idiocy like this (eg.
claiming that people who disagree with you are "attempt[ing] to hand
over control of free software to large corporations"). Try not lacing every
post with condescension, for a change, to improve your "signal/Sven ratio".
--
Glenn Maynard
ot;licenses which
attempt to go beyond copyright law are probably also non-free" is a
useful rule of thumb, but like all rules of thumb, we should be able
to get to the root of the issue--why the rule of thumb is correct in
each instance. So far, I don't see it here.
--
Glenn Maynard
sh seems to only apply to those licenses that say
"if you sue me for software patents at all, you lose the license to this
software", which I believe we agree is non-free anyway.
--
Glenn Maynard
urce, is not a copyright-based problem at all, but it's still dealt with
via copyright.
Perhaps it would be nice and poetically just if patents could be turned
against patents in a way that was practical for free software; but that
doesn't convince me that using copyright against patents is inherently
wrong.
--
Glenn Maynard
copyright permission for it, can it be done
> legally?
If I take your work, enhance it, give out binaries and refuse to give
out source, it's not the law restricting the work; it's my withholding
of source. The GPL fixes this by means of copyright law (GPL#3), even
though the problem isn't based in copyright.
(Of course, there are related problems which are based in copyright, such
as distributing modifications under a restrictive license, but that's GPL#6.)
--
Glenn Maynard
atent accusations.
By that line of reasoning, you never had the freedom to use my software
while at the same time alleging that it violates your patents, and I
don't believe this is a permission that a free software license needs
to grant, just as "permission to take my software proprietary" isn't a
permission that a free software license needs to grant.
--
Glenn Maynard
93 matches
Mail list logo
