On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:38:35AM -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be
> freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
>
> You have it right. Copyleft licenses defend freedom for all users by
> sto
Please. The GPL v4 mail was started by a troll. I am surprised that
anyone from the linux camp was taken in and keeps feeding the troll.
There's no GPL v4 (yet) and anyone who thinks there is, is a moron.
Now, can we leave a dead thread dead? Zombies should be exterminated
on sight.
Brainz..
Marco Peereboom wrote:
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end
of story.
On
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
term
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:53 -0500
Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an
> exclaimation, that's a factorial.)
>
> Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses.
> The GPL keeps getting things _added_.
>
> *inser
> Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial
> product for free
> or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
> grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his commercial
product
Morton Harrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
>
> For example, as a
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Morton Harrow wrote:
>>> Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
>>> next version be 3.1?
>
> To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
> 3
> 3.1
> 3.14
> 3.141
> 3.1415
> 3.14159
>
> --d
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:21:28 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>On Jul 16, 2008, "Morton Harrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah...
8>< snip loads of irrelevant shit.
Can all you bastards take this discussion to somewhere where it is
relevant instead of blindly CCing to all the addres
On Jul 16, 2008, "Morton Harrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
>
2008/7/17 Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Morton Harrow wrote:
>> Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior
>> GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have
>> been around in the Open Source world since the early
>> beginning. I am very happy with the spirit a
Morton Harrow wrote:
> Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior
> GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have
> been around in the Open Source world since the early
> beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the
> Free Software Foundation (FS
I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an
exclaimation, that's a factorial.)
Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses.
The GPL keeps getting things _added_.
*insert some sort of wisdom here about how this means BSD-like is better*
Reading (and actually
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:31 +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Miod Vallat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Morton Harrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: GPL version 4
> a high quality piece of GP
> Most of the people who have replied seem to be missing the point.
I just don't know what you brought the discussion to this mailing
list. If it is of serious concern to you, and if you haven't realized
that he probably won't care (or agree), talk to rms about this.
Either way, it's all your fre
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Morton Harrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008.
That's scary. I'm staying indoors, shutting down any linux/windows
pc's and not leaving the house that day.
e to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public
> License.
>
> The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open Source
> Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software should be
> possible without restrictions. Linking from
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's
> world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the
> *software*s freedom.
Oh, great. First poeple bend the term "freedom" (like FSF does),
then the
Morton Harrow wrote:
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown| Always do right. This
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31:15AM +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
> In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss
> another point.
Piss off.
1) if you read the text of GPL, you will notice that "later
versions" are explicitly limited to the versions published by FSF.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Miod Vallat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Morton Harrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: GPL version 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:06:23 +
>
>
> Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright exampl
Greetings All,
At many of you have realized, this is a textbook troll [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ]. For my part, I'm
muting this thread and moving on.
--
Cheers!
--zak
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
You mi
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:06:23PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
> next version be 3.1?
That might converge in some sense. If the end is to be something
like license.template, then we're talking about GPL version theta,
where the
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
gt; the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any
> software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the
current
> freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on
a
> free world.
>
> We propose to release as soo
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Morton Harrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear gentlemen (and included list-members),
>
> Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux
Hmmm... something is telling me this message won't have a happy end.
> consultant in the London met
L licensed software, without restrictions. But the current
freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a
free world.
We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public
License.
The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by
29 matches
Mail list logo
