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

"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait
news:1122467721.543847.232380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> 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."

Well, we have already answered to this, but, if you like,
here we go again:

The RosAsm License is a "GPL-Enhanced License".

This means that, basically, it is the GPL, that is re-inforced
but additional consideration, that expressively "_discriminate_
against some persons and some groups of persons".

I had an email exchange with the Author of the GPL, after a
public discussion, that i had called "GPL not enough", where
Richard expressed his opinion: "The Enhanced GPL is no more
the GPL".

.... What i do not care at all: To me RosAsm is licensed GPL
_plus_ the additional ethical restrictions. To me there is
no contradiction. I do not care if there are some for the
others and the fact that the GPL does not re-inforce moral,
ethical, political and political considerations is not my
problem, but... the fact that is does not is simply unhonest
and incoherent.

I consider the GPL license as the ancestor and precursor of
the Anti-Globalization Mouvement, that is the most recent
inheritor of the old european Anarchist Mouvement, and all
of this is overall political, ethical, and moral area. As
i already wrote:

"This is _not_ simply a Program".


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >


.

Relevant Pages

  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Copyleft and embedded Forth
    ... rights of another. ... Developer may do with p.d. ... Use isn't an issue with any free software license. ... You have to choose to use GPL software. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... you can't use a license ... At least this is how the GPL is ... you cannot use a license to turn actions that do not violate ... copyright law, not as defined in the GPL or in the common sense ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: GPL compliance
    ... Your main intent seems to be to spread FUD about the GPL and because ... every piece of code that is packaged has a copyright file. ... worrying only about the Canonical license for the whole CD and I was ... what does Red Hat have to do with it? ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Red Hat Enterprise - do I have to subscibe?
    ... which contradicts the GPL. ... They demand the ... > I am no lawyer but if there are contradictory terms then I believe it would ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)