From: Ben Finney
> This thread is already off-topic and too long. I'm conflicted about my
role in that;
> I have endeavoured only to address falsehoods that IMO were not
otherwise being addressed.
>
> So I'll try to keep this brief.
>
> Ethan Furman writes:
>
>> This doesn't make sense to me, but
This thread is already off-topic and too long. I'm conflicted about my
role in that; I have endeavoured only to address falsehoods that IMO
were not otherwise being addressed.
So I'll try to keep this brief.
Ethan Furman writes:
> This doesn't make sense to me, but I'm willing to learn -- how d
Ben Finney wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
[It is impractical to] sell free software like selling loaves of
bread, but that's a much more limited case and a far cry from your
claim [that it's impractical to sell free software]. Selling free
software is quite prac
On May 18, 11:03 am, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote:
> > No, the GPL makes it clear that the responsibly is on the distributor to
> > either supply the source or written notice, Caveat venditor. The violation
> > exists regardless of whether or not the recipient makes
--- On Tue, 5/18/10, Robert Kern wrote:
> From: Robert Kern
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 12:03 PM
> On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith
> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveir
On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:09 PM
In message,
Ed Keith
wrote:
But if my client give someone else a c
Paul Boddie wrote:
As I said before, spare me the condescension.
Spare us your self-righteous bull-crap.
Do you think we haven't seen your false accusations and made-up motives
against Patrick Maupin? If I cared more and/or had more time, I'd make
a summary -- but quite frankly Pat has defe
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:09 PM
> In message ,
> Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > But if my client give someone
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Duncan Booth wrote:
> From: Duncan Booth
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 8:52 AM
> Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > I can not imagine anyone being stupid enough to pay me
> for rights
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Ben Finney wrote:
> From: Ben Finney
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 12:57 AM
> a...@pythoncraft.com
> (Aahz) writes:
>
> > You can't really sell Open Source software in any
&
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> >[It is impractical to] sell free software like selling loaves of
> >bread, but that's a much more limited case and a far cry from your
> >claim [that it's impractical to sell free software]. Selling free
> >software is quite practical an
In article <87r5ldbw3k@benfinney.id.au>,
Ben Finney wrote:
>a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
>>
>> You can't really sell Open Source software in any practical way;
>> someone will always undercut you once it's out in the wild. You can
>> only sell support for the software, which is entirel
On May 16, 9:19 am, Ed Keith wrote:
> --- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
> > >> But what about the “freedom” to take away
> > other
> > >> people’s freedom? Is that really “freedom”?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > But that’s a “freedom” that non-GPL licences do not
> > give you, that the GPL
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:06 PM
> In message ,
> Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Robert Kern wrote:
> From: Robert Kern
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:10 PM
> On 2010-05-14 21:37 , Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:42:31 -0700, Ed Keith wrote
On 2010-05-15 22:05 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message
, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message, Ed
Keith wrote:
I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
do not want to require someone who does not know source code fro
In message , Ed Keith
wrote:
> But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they
> are now in violation.
Why would they be in violation? It seems to me a violation would only occur
if someone asked them for the source, and they refused.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
In message
<93d67bd9-6721-4759-a3de-412b95b29...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Paul
Boddie wrote:
> Although Bill Gates once apparently claimed that no-one needs the
> source code for their word processor or office suite ...
Thereby committing the sealed-bonnet fallacy.
--
http://mail.python.o
In message , Ed Keith
wrote:
> On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
>
>> In message ,
>> Ed Keith wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms,
>>> under the MIT or Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other
>>> licenses they have fewer freedoms.
>>
In message
, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message , Ed
>> Keith wrote:
>>
>>> I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
>>> do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
On 15 Mai, 03:46, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > And suggesting that people have behavioural disorders ("Or because
> > have OCD?") might be a source of amusement to you, or may be a neat
> > debating trick in certain circles you admire, but rest assured that I
On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
[Rest of the post, that contains points previously debated and well-
refuted, snipped]
> Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people
> develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest,
See, there you go again, impugning th
Paul Boddie writes:
> especially as the "about" page for PySide spells out the licensing
> objective. Take away the proprietary software requirement and you
> might as well use the GPL.
Thank you for mentioning PySide, I wasn't aware of this project.
--
John Bokma
On 15 Mai, 04:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Paul
> Boddie wrote:
> > Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from
> > potentially contributing because they would not be able to sell
> > proprietary versions of the software ...
>
> It doesn’t prevent them
On May 15, 12:49 pm, Albert van der Horst
wrote:
> In article
> <7bdce8a7-bf7d-4f1f-bc9d-1eca26974...@d27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
> >That is correct. All "privileges" as you put it are merely things
> >that a user can do with the code without fear of a lawsuit b
On May 14, 8:04 am, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
>> under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to
>> use? Lucky you!
> Steven, did you actually read what he wrote? If you did, why
In article <7bdce8a7-bf7d-4f1f-bc9d-1eca26974...@d27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>That is correct. All "privileges" as you put it are merely things
>that a user can do with the code without fear of a lawsuit by the
>author, and when an author uses a permissive license, he
On 2010-05-14 21:37 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:42:31 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the LGPL, If I give someone
something that used any LGPLed code I must give them the ability to
relink it with any future releases of the LGPLed code. I think
In article <7bfa5457-027d-4ee1-a54f-3c0baba45...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>So, there are good reasons for both kinds of licenses, which I think
>everybody on the pro-permissive side has been saying all along. Of
>course, "force" is a more inflammatory word that "obl
In article ,
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
>>
>> Which license you use depends partly on your political philosophy.
>
>Did they close down debian-legal, or why is this thread growing so long?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ;-)
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com)
Ed Keith wrote:
> I can not imagine anyone being stupid enough to pay me for rights to
> use code I had already published under the Boost License, which grants
> then the rights to do anything they want with it without paying me
> anything.
> -EdK
>
Really?
The Boost License says, amongst ot
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The only time
that comes into play in my programming life is *when I have to recode*
something that is nominally available under the GPL,
You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
un
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> From: Steven D'Aprano
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 7:41 PM
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:24:04 -0700,
> Ed Keith wrote:
>
> > --- On Thu, 5/13
Brendan Abel wrote:
While I think most of the disagreement in this long thread results
from different beliefs in what "freedom" means, I wanted to add, that
most of the responses that argue that the MIT license permits the user
more freedom than the GPL, suffer from the broken window fallacy.
Thi
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:24:04 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
What have you got against LGPL for this purpose? --
Most of my clients would not know how to relink a program if their life
depended on it. And I do not want to put the
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> From: Steven D'Aprano
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 10:59 PM
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:39:05 -0700,
> Ed Keith wrote:
>
> > Yes, under the GPL every
On May 15, 1:34 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message <548024fc-
> >> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
> >> Maupin wrote
On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <548024fc-
>> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>> Maupin wrote:
>>
>> > The confusion that some are showing in this t
On May 15, 12:50 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued
> Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence.
Well, I specifically excluded BSD for this rea
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> I don't actually
> recall any suits about violations of the MIT or Apache licenses.
The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued
Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence.
Admittedl
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:18:09 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> But if I release it with the Boost license, while technically I can
> release it with the GPL tomorrow, in practice everyone will use the
> previously released Boost licensed version.
That's a very interesting experiment to perform. Perhaps yo
On May 14, 11:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:10:50 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> > But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them,
> > they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this
> > position.
>
> If your client is distributing software
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Which license you use depends partly on your political philosophy.
Did they close down debian-legal, or why is this thread growing so long?
Ah, I forgot - Friday ...
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> You can't really sell Open Source software in any practical way;
> someone will always undercut you once it's out in the wild. You can
> only sell support for the software, which is entirely different.
Not at all. I've been selling all the software I write fo
On May 14, 9:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I think this talk about freedoms is dangerously incomplete, and is
> confusing the issue rather than shedding more light. Both licences grant
> the same positive freedoms (freedom to do something). MIT-style licences
> grant permission to:
>
> * make co
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:10:50 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them,
> they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this
> position.
If your client is distributing software without reading and obeying the
licence terms, then t
In article <93d67bd9-6721-4759-a3de-412b95b29...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Paul Boddie wrote:
>
>Whether or not one is comfortable with copyleft-style licences, there
>clearly is a benefit in providing access to software governed by those
>licences.
...and this newsgroup surely is evidence
In article ,
Paul Boddie wrote:
>On 14 Mai, 03:56, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
>>
>> IMO this only makes sense if one agrees that people should not be allowed
>> to sell software for money. Absent that agreement, your argument about
>> freedom seems rather limited.
>
>You'll have to expla
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Paul Boddie wrote:
> From: Paul Boddie
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 8:12 PM
> On 14 Mai, 21:18, Ed Keith
> wrote:
> >
> > The GPL is fine when all parties concern understand
>
On May 14, 9:17 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Patrick
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary
> > systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers.
>
> And vice versa. Everybody, whether working in closed or open environment
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:39:05 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or
> Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they
> have fewer freedoms.
I think this talk about freedoms is dangerously incomplete, and is
confusing
On May 14, 8:58 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or
> > Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they have
> > fewer freedoms.
>
> But what about the “freedom” to take aw
On May 14, 9:32 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Don't be silly. That's why I started writing open source software in
> > the first place. But if I start writing stuff to put in the commons
> > with strings removed, why would I bother with a license that just adds
> > some strings back?
>
> To max
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 10:07 PM
> In message ,
> Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > That is one good reason for choo
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 9:58 PM
> In message ,
> Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, under the GPL every one has
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:42:31 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the LGPL, If I give someone
> something that used any LGPLed code I must give them the ability to
> relink it with any future releases of the LGPLed code. I think that
> means that I need to give them a li
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
> > do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
> > code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating t
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:04:53 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>> > The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
>> > elsewhere if someone else had done
On May 14, 8:57 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <84a26d03-03b3-47d9-
>
> a1f9-107470b87...@k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > I also firmly believe, as I have stated before, that the GPL is a much
> > more commercial license. If you want to make money off somethin
In message , Paul Boddie wrote:
> If you think the mobile telephony vendors are a bunch of fluffy bunny
> rabbits playing with each other in sugary meadows of niceness, I don't
> want to be present when someone directly and finally disabuses you of
> this belief.
The rise to popularity of Free So
In message , Ed Keith
wrote:
> I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
> do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
> code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating the
> license.
Why don’t you just put the source code on t
In message
, Paul
Boddie wrote:
> Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from
> potentially contributing because they would not be able to sell
> proprietary versions of the software ...
It doesn’t prevent them from selling proprietary versions of their own
contribution
In message
, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
> After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary
> systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers.
And vice versa. Everybody, whether working in closed or open environments,
builds on the work of everybody else. Rsync pioneered the
On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <548024fc-
> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin
> wrote:
>
> > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
> > must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.
>
On May 14, 9:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Patrick
>
>
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message
> >> <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> >>> On May 13, 10:04 pm,
In message , Ed Keith
wrote:
> That is one good reason for choosing to use the GPL, instead of a less
> restrictive license. You can license it, for a fee, to someone who wants
> to use it in some way that is not allowed under the GPL.
Replace “GPL” with “” and your statement is no less (or more
In message
<5e719bcd-5405-4c34-870b-13e64ef1f...@k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>>>
>>
In message <548024fc-
dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin
wrote:
> The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
> must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.
What “confusion”? The GPL requires that source must always
In message
, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>>> On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> wrote:
>>
>> >> In message , Ed
>> >> Keith w
In message , Ed Keith
wrote:
> Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or
> Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they have
> fewer freedoms.
But what about the “freedom” to take away other people’s freedom? Is that
really “freedom”?
--
htt
In message <84a26d03-03b3-47d9-
a1f9-107470b87...@k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> I also firmly believe, as I have stated before, that the GPL is a much
> more commercial license. If you want to make money off something,
> then, no doubt, GPL keeps your competitors from bein
On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 21:14, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the
> > sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably
> > didn't provide a "written offer." What you're "ignoring for the
On May 14, 7:24 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> "The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
> distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
> fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening
> noncommercial, occasional redistributors with
On May 14, 6:42 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > You really should slow down and read a bit more carefully.
>
> You might want to tone down the condescension.
I didn't start out condescending, and I agree I could have worded this
particular statement a bit more clearly, so I apologize for that, but
I
On May 14, 8:20 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > > > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
>
> > > Yes. So what? In what possib
The following lines from
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
seem to cover the case of someone who casually redistributes, for free,
Ubuntu or whatever. Such can refer people back to the Ubuntu site. They
should, perhaps, be familiar with the url, but I would ex
On 14 Mai, 21:18, Ed Keith wrote:
>
> The GPL is fine when all parties concern understand what source code is
> and what to do with it. But when you add people like my father to the loop
> if gets very ugly very fast.
Sure, and when I'm not otherwise being accused of pushing one
apparently rather
On 14 Mai, 21:14, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the
> sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably
> didn't provide a "written offer." What you're "ignoring for the
> moment" is my whole point, that unlike Ubuntu,
On 14 Mai, 22:12, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> I *obviously*
> was explaining that projects which *aren't* marginal, such as PyQt and
> MatLab, are the *only* kinds of projects that would be rewritten for a
> simple license change.
"As far as your comments about PyQt proving out the concept, well du
On May 14, 2:26 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > That statement was made in the context of why Carl doesn't use GPL-
> > licensed *libraries*. He and I have both explained the difference
> > between libraries and programs multiple times, not that you car
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Paul Boddie wrote:
<<<>>
>
> No, PySide is about permitting the development of
> proprietary
> applications by providing a solution to the all-important
> "ISVs" which
> lets them develop and deploy proprietary software. Do you
> really think
> a platform vendor whose "ISVs
On 14 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> That statement was made in the context of why Carl doesn't use GPL-
> licensed *libraries*. He and I have both explained the difference
> between libraries and programs multiple times, not that you care.
Saying that GPL-licensed applications are accept
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Paul Boddie wrote:
<<< lots of stuff snipped >>>
> > > Like I said, if you really have a problem with
> Ubuntu shipping CDs and
> > > exposing others to copyright infringement
> litigation.
<<< A lot more stuff snipped >>>
Everyone is assuming a certain degree of compute
On May 14, 1:38 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "If
> > > distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
> > > to copy from a
On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "If
> > distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
> > to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access t
On May 14, 1:07 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 19:00, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > Would you have agreed had he had said that "MatLab's license doesn't
> > do much good" and assigned the same sort of meaning to that statement,
> > namely that the MatLab license prevented enough motivated peopl
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> This is a big reason for me to release everything (see my
> website,
> it is a *lot*) under GPL. If someone wants to use it they
> can,
> if someone wants to use it commercially, they can too, as
> long
> as they pay me a little bit too. Really,
On 14 Mai, 19:00, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> Would you have agreed had he had said that "MatLab's license doesn't
> do much good" and assigned the same sort of meaning to that statement,
> namely that the MatLab license prevented enough motivated people from
> freely using MatLab in ways that were
In article <4be9554...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Lie Ryan wrote:
>
>Come on, 99% of the projects released under GPL did so because they
>don't want to learn much about the law; they just need to release it
>under a certain license so their users have some legal certainty. Most
>programmers are not
On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
>
> No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
> useful to clarify the licence author's intent in a litigation
>
On May 14, 10:20 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > > > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
>
> > > Yes. So what? In what possi
On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
useful to clarify the licence author's intent in a litigation
environment.
[Fast-forward through the usual tirade, t
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Tobiah wrote:
> From: Tobiah
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:59 AM
>
> > Assertion II:
> > If person A is free do perform an action
> person B is not free to
> > perf
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> From: Patrick Maupin
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:47 AM
> On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence
> D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> > In mess
> Assertion II:
>If person A is free do perform an action person B is not free to
>perform then person A is free to do more than person B.
This does not hold water. Let's say there are only 10 activities
available. Person A can do number 1 and person B can not. Person
B can do activiti
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Are you implying that by distributing your libraries under the MIT or
Apache licence, no linking is required? That's a cool trick, can you
explain how it works please?
Err.. Linking statically with library in question? Which excludes LGPL
for legal reasons and doesn't e
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> Under the GPL, everybody has exactly the same freedoms.
>
> > That's absolute
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-
>
>
>
> dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message , Ed
> >> Keith wrote:
>
> >>> The claim is being made that [th
On May 14, 8:26 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> Just to deal with your Ubuntu "high horse" situation first, you should
> take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best
> practices around GPL-licensed software distribution:
>
> http://www.soft
On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks wrote:
> On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
>
> > Yes. So what? In what possible way is this an argument against the GPL?
[...]
>
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
