Re: It's time to talk about Free Software
- To: Tom Lear <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: theDon@cs.ucc.ie, email@example.com, Brian Sheehan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Donal McCarthy <email@example.com>, Alan Hamilton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: It's time to talk about Free Software
- From: Joseph Carter <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:55:20 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19990219005520.H10184@debian.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Tom Lear <firstname.lastname@example.org>, theDon@cs.ucc.ie, email@example.com, Brian Sheehan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Donal McCarthy <email@example.com>, Alan Hamilton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96LJ1.1b7.990218200326.20242Aemail@example.com>; from Tom Lear on Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 08:10:36PM -0800
- References: <[🔎] Pine.OSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96LJ1.1b7.990218200326.20242Aemail@example.com>
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
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
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