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