Re: HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- From: "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:05 +0200
"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1122467721.543847.232380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 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
|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- From: hutch--
- Re: HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- From: Alex McDonald
- HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- Prev by Date: Re: HELP::Redirecting DOS display output to memory location
- Next by Date: Re: HAY Betov, why won't you properly support GPL software.
- Previous by thread: Re: HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- Next by thread: Re: HAY Betov, still no support for GPL or LINUX, WHY ????
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
