[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:18:06 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Linus Torvads licenses Linux under GPL2, and created Linux to mesh
>> with GNU software. Eric Raymond still contributes to GNU
>> software. And all these people treat each other with respect, and
>> when they disagree, they express that disagreement in a high
>> quality and respectful manner.
> I have to agree with Alan:
Hey, thanks!
> http://www.linuxtoday.com/mailprint.php3?action=pv<sn=2001-08-17-016-20-OP-CY
> Eric Raymond: Freedom, Power, or Confusion? [ESR on debate between
> O'Reilly and FSF]:
> "In other words, Stallman and Kuhn want to be able to make decisions
> that affect other developers more than themselves. By the definition
> they themselves have proposed, they want power.
> Perplexing, isn't it? Tim and the FSFers both claim to stand for
> `freedom'. Both assert that each others' definition of "freedom" is
> actually a covert form of control, a claim of power over others. The
> only difference is in who the victims of "Powerplay Zero" are, users
> or developers."
The fact is, any exercise of freedom impinges on somebody else in some
fashion. The GPL, by rigorously preserving the freedom of all to amend
a program, necessarily restricts the freedom of those who wish to
incorporate a GPL program into proprietary code. GPL has gone one way
on this choice, BSD has gone the other way.
> Eric Raymond speaks simple, gospel truth without ad hominem attacks!
Yes.
> Sincerely,
> Rjack
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, (continued)
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hadron, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/12
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/14