Re: License Choice

Betov wrote:

> Bal Oney <bal@xxxxx> écrivait news:a2043$438bbc21$438d00d7$3920
> @ALLTEL.NET:
>
>> Choosing an open source license depends on how you define free,
>
> Yes.
>
>> and
>> free to me means no one will ever have to pay to use free software.
>> The GPL and LGPL both try to guarantee this type of freeness.
>
> To you, yes. But this is only a - not necessary - side effect
> of the GPL mouvement.
>
> Initialy, the GPL was invented to guaranty that Open Sources
> could remain open forever. You are perfectly allowed to _sell_
> Projects including GPled Sources, for example, as long as the
> GPL Sources are provided inside. There are many ways to make
> money with GPLed Apps, and many examples of this oportunity,
> including from the Crime&Co Companies (say, IBM).
>
> Second, the GPL guaranties the users right of taking the Open
> Sources, and to modify them, either for private use, or for
> public distribution, under the very evident condition that
> the whole Sources remain GPL. (What ass-holes of the Randall
> Hyde camp are used to call "the virus properties of the GPL).
>
> :)
>

Well I have certainly have no wish to interrupt your ongoing
debates with Prof. Hyde. I was just stating my reasons for
prefering the GPL and LPGL over other licenses.

> Third, there are all of the ethical considerations, and this
> point is the most "discuted". Some (like me), push the logic
> to its natural end, and say clearly, that the GPL Mouvement
> is a politicaly left-wing mouvement, which purpose and goal
> is to fight against the major companies, who want to take
> control on public liberties, on culture, and on Democratie.
> Some others - most, infact - are in the opinion that the GPL
> is just the GPL, without ethical and political implications.
> Which is, IMO, a complete negation of logic.
>

My ethical considerations are nowhere as deep as yours. I just
figure that I have profited handsomely from GPL'd software simply
because I use much more of it than I could ever hope to write.

> You have a brillant example, of this deny of any kind of
> logic, for example, when seeing some Linux-dedicated Pages
> providing references to Master Pdf, for Linux Assembly,
> whereas the insane stinking snake never contributed to
> anything for Assembly, and regulary fought against the
> volunteers working for the Assembly Rebirth, against the
> Open Sources Mouvement, against the GPL, dreaming sweet
> dreams about having the ReactOS Project sued and killed
> by MicroSoft, and so on..., and so on..., and so on...
>
> [Point "Third" is the exact reason why RosAsm is released
> under double License, in order to ensure that the logic,
> ethic and politic implicit implications of the GPL will
> not be negated]

Dual licensing is a good thing as it offers users a choice
between commercial licensing and pure GPL depending on their.
For that you are to be commended. As for Master Pdf I take it
that that is another poster you debate?

>
>
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org >

I did check at your site and got the impression that your
assembler is for Win32 systems only. I run three Linux
boxes so I doubt I would find it very useful.
.

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: A response to Ed Beroset
    ... NO licence allows for it to be made part of a GPL project. ... > You could modify the code so it built in another assembler but then it ... > Such a definition of freedom is vacuous of content, ... misunderstanding of GPL (or any other license). ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • 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)