[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: It's time to talk about Free Software

On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 08:10:36PM -0800, Tom Lear wrote:
> > his/her ass, legally speaking.  however, all these different licenses are
> > a bit of a kludge, because nobody is going to read them, much less try to
> Some of them (QPL) were carefully reviewed/revised by people like us.

As much of an impact as I had on the QPL as part of Debian, many hopes I
had for the QPL will likely not be in the final license.  I haven't seen
it, though Bruce has and said it was Open Source.

> > interpret them, and thus we are unaware of our true rights when it comes
> > to the code we write.  who's to say that some time in the future, if you
> > have your code buried in some part of a non-GPL, open-source source tree,
> > the company can't turn around and decide to make it closed-source again?  
> That's the main point that companies want in there though.  Can we say
> code fork?

Problem is they can keep forking the free version as a closed version  =/

> > regarding Java development needs to change.  they do everything in their
> > power to hide the URLs of files you download from their website so they
> > can force you to click 'yes' on their conditions pages (try downloading
> > JFC and you'll see what i mean).
> Yeah but on the licence form you can erase the licence and replace it with
> the GPL before you agree and it will still give you the program.

I wonder what legal effect this has....  <chuckle>

> >  do we need another license like a Commercial GNU Public License (CGPL)
> > where the code is still completely free to modify, but the author's
> > concerns are accommodated and their needs dealt with?
> This I think is a really good idea potentially worth spending some money
> on.

I think probably this is a bad move.  I thought it a good one before, but
I've somewhat changed my mind here.  Corporations are trying to make
Linux non-free little by little and most of the community is all too
happy to let them do it.  Binary-only applications, binary-only network
clients(!), binary-only network servers(!!), and binary-only kernel
drivers(!!!) are WELCOMED and SUPPORTED by too much of the community. 
This is A Very Bad Thing.

> > needed.  should we meet them halfway, and create a reasonable license
> > which they can all use, without exceptions?  that way perhaps they won't
> > have any excuses to make their software anything other than completely
> > free in the future.
> This would also probably help keep the OSD under control (if it's not too
> late).

I think it's time to abandon the Open Source, Eric can HAVE it.  We need
to wake up those of the community that have a clue and dig in for what's
going to be a very long night.

"There are 3 things to remember about being a Starship Captain: 
 Keep your shirt tucked in, go down with the ship, and never, 
 ever abandon a member of your crew."
                        -- Kathryn Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager

Reply to: