Re: Re: license questions.
> well it was just an example from me. same situation happened earlier on
> other products. iirc that i read someone's reply on /. describing that
> there was an equal situation after someone started to fork emacs.
Correct; Emacs was forked into XEmacs and there were flamewars. I'm
not familiar with the details.
> well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode. thats not what
> i am concerned of. i only search for a suitable license NOW to protect
> myself for the future. it's better to search NOW for a correct solution
> than having to deal with the consequencies afterwards.
> why not ? i mean i don't like GNU/GPL much because it is too free.
Fair enough, don't use it. No hard feelings.
> allowing everyone to do whatever they like.
Not really true, of course. It does not allow someone to distribute derivative
works under anything BUT the GNU GPL.
> why should i follow it
> because someone told me to do so?
You shouldn't, of course.
> http://opensource.org is full of
> different OSI aproved licenses. not necessarily GNU/GPL. at the very
> final end its the users problem if he/she wants to use the software or
> not. i only want to make sure he/she is able to get the source and
> compile it.
This is why I hesitated to respond; I don't know of any such license exists
within the class of OSI approved ones. If I knew about one, I'd tell you, of
> yeah but i am not linus torvalds. personally i see the kernel situation
> losing it's focus and bounds. everyone is forking its own kernel now and
> at the very end we deal with 10 derivates of it which none of them is
> really perfect.
And yet, as a whole, the Linux kernel is spreading like wildfire. Something
must be right about it.
> yeah like redhat hired all main developers of gtk and gnome and made a
> pile of well... MACOS clone out of it. losing the focus of what it was
> meant to be 4-5 years ago. to say it with other words: 'if we cant own
> or direct the software for our own profit, then we can hire their
> developers and force those to make it the way we want.' many people
> think this sentence sounds insane and trollish but looking behind the
> border this sounds really true.
I have no problem accepting that this may very well be the case. I also
don't see a problem with it. The pool of free software has been extended
with a great desktop system. It may not be what the original developers
had in mind, but then again, this is the organic nature of free software.
> > > "there are a lot of stupid people outside, that work for free. we let
> > > them work and sell their stuff. we get the big cash."
> > Hehe, so be it. I don't mind. As long as they play by the rules that is.
> > A real problem is when free software is used in proprietary products.
> > That's license violations and should be dealt with appropriately.
> do you belive this ?
> i don't exactly know how FSF is funding themselves
> but if you violate GPL then i doubt that anything big will happen on the
> long term.
I can tell you that things will. The FSF has a very competent departement
that deals with licens violations and they work hard. I have personally
been involved in helping them out in one of those cases. Or perhaps they
helped me, depending on how you look at it. At least one of these guys
subscribe to this list and he may be able to tell you more.
> if 10 different companies are going to violate the license
> then FSF will become really poor in a short time because of paying their
As I said, at least one of the guys who work with this subscribes to this list
and I hope he can enlighten us.
> thank you for the fast reply.
You're welcome. Beeing european I'm up. The americans are probably still
> hope i didnt sound trollish or offensive
> with my reply but since you replied to my previous mail you deserve an
> openhearted reply from me.
I'm not offended at all. These issues interest me. And I need the practice. I'm
preparing a speech on free software to be held internally on my company.
The questions that you bring may very well be asked.