On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 13:39 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > > Mike McCarty wrote: [...snip...] > Umm, you didn't read or you didn't understand what I wrote. > I lumped several things together, but I did not say they > were the same thing. The Debian social contract falls under > the first rubrik "change the social order", since it subscribes > to the FOSS, which goals I do not support. > > I'll quote a short piece from the page you put below, which goals > I do not support... > > [QUOTE MODE ON] > > The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) > > 1. Free Redistribution > > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate > software distribution containing programs from several different > sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. > > 2. Source Code > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution > in source code as well as compiled form. > > 3. Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the > original software. > > [QUOTE MODE OFF] Yeap, thats it. > Now, this does not mean that I think that people who want to do this > are bad. It's just not something I particularly support or want to > participate in. If you want to give your stuff away, that's fine. > But to require others to do so in order to contribute is not fine, > and I'll not contribute, participate, or support such an attempt. Oh, so... umm you can use my stuff for free, but I have to pay for yours and give you royalties if you contribute back to my work? Hmmm, you sound like Brett Glass, spouting about how free software should be exploited by Commercial institutions for profit. Or wait, IP of Linux is ALL SCOG's property. Because its a derivative of *NIX. Or even better, claiming unfair competition from a product that devalues software to a non-cost center. > One of the worst things for freedom of software, IMO, was the > development of the GPL. I do not like, and do not support the GPL, > LGPL, or similar types of license, which Debian *does* support, > promote, and even require contributors to use. The GPL, LGPL, and > similar kinds of license, which Debian supports, defends, promotes, > and requires are an attempt to change the social order. No, not really social order... social GREED... and social POWER. So when did you start channeling Bill Gates? Or Darl McBride? > [snip] > > > I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer, > > because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any more > > and all work that was done with that program was more or less lost. > > Umm, you never did have that license, then, and you used the software > in an unauthorized manner. In short, you used a pirate copy. He suddenly didn't have access to Proprietary document formats, using the Linux platform to write those documents. He may have done all the "writing" at work with M$ word... shame he had to lose that work... because he chose Linux to operate with now since he left his place of employ. Or are you saying that Microsoft owns the Documents because he used Word to create them? And he would be pirating his own distinct work.? > [snip] > > >  http://www.de.debian.org/social_contract > > I used this link to verify that I was using the version you had > in mind. You are thinking and looking at things with a closed mind Mike. Please move along to your preferred OS... and leave us poor Linux users. If you HATE the GPL so much, why are you using SO MUCH GPL'd software? Or licenses similar to the GPL, such as the Mozilla License that Thunderbird is released under. Just go start using OpenBSD, and try to keep GPL'd software of it... or Better yet, Use Windows. No, OSX doesn't count it has tons of GPLd software on it standard. -- greg, email@example.com The technology that is Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part