Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
Since I'm in his killfile, I'm responding to the list more to set the
record straight than caring whether or not Starner hears me...I guess the
freedom quote fell on deaf ears... I've always thought a "killfile
parting shot" was in bad taste, but this is sort of about freedom of
others to speak, so I think I'm allowed this one.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:29:36PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > suitable application of weasel words. From the vast (or is it half-vast?)
> > amount of discussion on this point, I'm guessing that the GPL is the
> > violated one, so thus is the more restrictive in that circumstance. I'm
>
> Guessing indicates you don't know what you're talking about. If you had
> actually read any part of the discussions on this subject, there would
> be no need to guess that the GPL is the license being violated.
Guessing indicates that I wasn't sure what the consensus was, not that I
wasn't informed. It's pretty obvious which one is being violated, I'm
just leaving an opening for differences in case someone is willing to back
up a QPL violation theory.
> > going to go out on the limb and be a Devil's Advocate here: since two
> > alleged "open source" licenses meet and the result is undistributable,
> > would it not be logical to think of the offending license as the non-free?
>
> No, they are just incompatible. It doesn't mean they are non-free.
If they're incompatible, that logically means that one (or both) is
restricting SOMEBODY's freedom: the freedom to edit code, and to share
that work with others. Under the present situation, the code may not be
distributed: there is no freedom of speech.
> > BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into
> > /usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl
>
> What does "free enough" have to do with _COMMON_ licenses? If you have
> a package that uses the QPL (like libqt2 or OCaml) it comes with the
> license. It's just not common enough to put in /usr/share/common-licenses.
You're right--free != common, but then again, if it were common licenses,
I'm guessing that the Microsoft EULA should be listed, since it's more
common that all of the rest of them combined (just in case any of you are
as humor impaired as Starner, THIS WAS SARCASM).
> BTW, this little flame earned you the following spot in my .procmailrc
>
> :0
> * ^From:.*galt@inconnu.isu.edu*
> /dev/null
Don't let the door hit you where the dog shoulda bit you. Another
indication that the freedom quote fell on deaf ears (as will everything
else I write in his case...his loss).
> --
> David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
> Finger dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu for more information.
> Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
> square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
> -- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU
>
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: