Maybe OT but of interest to some

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff Needle
  • Start date Start date
Thanks. I wonder how often this happens.
Click to expand...

More often than you might think. IBM for instance has brought
the GPL into play against SCO as a means of filing violations
of Federal Copyright Law against SCO when SCO ran around claiming
they didn't have to comply with the GPL, since IBM has released
Linux kernel and other software code under the GPL.
 
NONSENSE!

I've released tons of freeware over the years without ever making
the
source available.
Click to expand...

Freeware *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FREE SOFTWARE* They are two
totally diffrent things, with Freeware/Shareware being found
mostly in the Windows and Mac worlds,and Free Software/Open Source
being found mostly in the Unix/Linux/BSD world.
 
Doesn't the GPL require that the source be made available?
Click to expand...

Yes,but it's not really an Open Source License.

The GPL has more to do with Federal and International Copyright Law.

Which is why so many people (Like Bill Gates) are so scared to death
of it.
 
[email protected] said:
Free <x> means that you can legally obtain <x> with no payment.
Stop
reinventing English.
Click to expand...

Actually legally, free *DOESN'T MEAN THAT*

One can put legal restrictions on what's given away for free.

A perfect example is Food Stamps.

If you try selling them for cash or drugs,the local,state and federal
goverments are going to lock your ass up.
 
Why bother? The Open Source Initiative has *NOTHING* to do with
the GPL.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the GPL is an open source license.
The people responsible for the GPL is the FSF (Free Software
Foundation) whom pretty much has nothing to do with the Open
Source Initiative.
Click to expand...

In that case, you might want to e-mail the FSF and have them "correct"
/their/ website, which claims they work together with the Open Source
movement on many projects.
 
Actually legally, free *DOESN'T MEAN THAT*

One can put legal restrictions on what's given away for free.

A perfect example is Food Stamps.

If you try selling them for cash or drugs,the local,state and federal
goverments are going to lock your ass up.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said - you don't pay for them. "Free" has nothing to
do with other restrictions - they can exist but they don't have to.
We're saying the same thing in different words.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I have an update on this Think All thing, and it's a little
anticlimactic at this point. This morning, I received an e-mail from a
fellow in charge of customer relations, telling my they're refunding my
money. Naturally, I'm glad, but it kinda takes the wind out of my sails. I
still, of course, object to the way they do business.
 
Jeff said:
Well, I have an update on this Think All thing, and it's a little
anticlimactic at this point. This morning, I received an e-mail from a
fellow in charge of customer relations, telling my they're refunding my
money. Naturally, I'm glad, but it kinda takes the wind out of my sails. I
still, of course, object to the way they do business.
Click to expand...

I hope you tell them that (after you get the refund) anyway. 80)>

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.
 
Well, I have an update on this Think All thing, and it's a little
anticlimactic at this point. This morning, I received an e-mail from a
fellow in charge of customer relations, telling my they're refunding my
money. Naturally, I'm glad, but it kinda takes the wind out of my sails. I
still, of course, object to the way they do business.
Click to expand...

You won. After the win it's always anticlimactic.
 
Yes,but it's not really an Open Source License.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define "Open Source".

The GPL imposes a requirement that you have to redistribute source code if
you distribute the binaries. This ensures that source code remains available
to end-users. However, some would say that this one requirement means that
users are no longer totally free to do what they want, thus the source isn't
truly "open".

The BSD license imposes no such restriction so at first sight it allows
more freedom than the GPL. However, since someone can take the whole OS if
they want, make a few changes, and then refuse to redistribute the complete
source to their changes (this is what Apple did when they based OS-X on
FreeBSD), BSD-licensed software is at high risk of becoming closed-source
for the end-user.

Which license is "most" free is just a matter of whose perspective you wish
to take - that of a source-code recipient, or that of their downstream
users.
The GPL has more to do with Federal and International Copyright Law.
Click to expand...

The GPL cleverly uses the copyright law to grant permission to use the code
only if source is distributed with any binaries built from it. There's no
point of attack here; if a company gets the GPL "contract" or the law
that enforces it ruled invalid, then that only means that they're no longer
granted permission to use the source code.
Which is why so many people (Like Bill Gates) are so scared to death
of it.
Click to expand...

Yep. If one single line of GPL'd code is ever found anywhere in Windows,
Microsoft will have to open-source the whole shebang.

Wouldn't that be fun? :o)
 
Back
Top