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

Re: Bad license on VCG?

On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:54:19AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> > As I said, I think all those who are saying otherwise are guilty of
> > confusing what we're allowed to do with what we want to do.
> Or, possibly, you're not seeing a crucial aspect of the whole debate. 
> That's my opinion, anyway. 

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ for now.

I'll save anything else for private mail; I have no desire to have a public
argument for the sake of it. Besides which the whole question is moot anyway
(we're unlikely to *want* to distribute the code in question as 'free' even
though I believe we could).

> No; they wish to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to publish
> source code and build a community, but they also want to withhold parts
> of the code.
> I consider such behavior to be deceptive.  They could have simply
> compiled the "secret" code into binary modules and provided an exemption
> clause for the GPLed code; this would have been more honest and
> straightforward.  Instead, they are playing semantic games and trying to
> confuse the issue.


Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.

Reply to: