Re: HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????

hutch-- wrote:
> Wriggle all you like Betov, make as much noise as you like but you have
> still not explained why you don't support LINUX and why you will not
> licence your software under the GPL.
>

Linux isn't the point; there is GPL software for Windows, and the GPL
is platform agnostic. The point may be that the RosAsm licence is a
heavily modfied GPL, and hence isn't GPL at all. Betov once suggested
iirc that Guga was a lawyer and had written much of the RosAsm licence.


As I wrote before in another thread;

There are two licences, the GPL and the RosAsm licence. The GPL doesn't
have any force as a licence, because the RosAsm licence clearly
contradicts it -- and it's a mess. In fact, a court might declare
_both_ licences unenforceable as a consequence, and standard
copyright law would apply.

RosAsm -- "20. The License does not apply and the Program and all it's
' derivative works', 'works based on the Program' and documents,
tutorials, demos and all related material, are forbidden to be used,
copied, distributed, translated, analyzed, modified, and perform any
of the acts described on this License, by military, Para-military,
political, or any Governmental Agencies, Organizations, Institutes
and related personal/staff of any Country, especially when the
purpose of the usage of the Program is related to them."

Which is as clear as mud (what in Heaven's name is an Institute doing
in this list?), and contradicts the GPL, which only permits
geographical restrictions based on patent. The RosAsm licence is
certainly not a GPL licence, or even any licence that the OSI would
recognise; the OSI explicitly state that; "No Discrimination Against
Persons or Groups; The license must not discriminate against any
person or group of persons." and "No Discrimination Against Fields of
Endeavor; The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being
used for genetic research."

Or how about

RosAsm -- "5 - The Licensee is free to use RosAsm to build his/her
own and independent programs, which means building a 'work based on
the Program', he agrees to create them respecting all terms of this
License whether the program is focused to improve the Open Source and
Free Software movement, whether it is focused to Commercial
applications, inserting a small reference that his/her application
was built using RosAsm followed by RosAsm's notice of copyright."

That's nonsense _and_ extremely viral. No GPL compiler/assembler I
know of has such a clause; that the output of the program (and
presumably the input) must "respect all terms of this License"!

Betov should stick with the GPL, or a properly drawn up open licence;
there are plenty at http://www.opensource.org/. For what everyone
apart from Betov means by open source, see http://www.opensource.org/
docs/definition.php.

--
Regards
Alex McDonald

.

Relevant Pages