lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: APC, Your company is making a mistake!
On 20 Oct 1998, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

I thought this issue was done being discussed, but I'll not be
blamed and flamed in a public forum for STANDING UP FOR THE GPL
LICENSE when it affects me - without my defense.

This message SHOULD have been mailed privately instead, however
since it was public, I will respond publically.

>>Well, I understand that, and I fully support your efforts Andre,
>>as I'm sure you're aware. However the existence of binary only
>>software that is GPL'd puts you in violation of the GPL. From my
>
>--- cut ---
>http://www.dyer.vanderbilt.edu/server/apcupsd/
>
>The suspended support and the removal of all binaries is brought to
>you by an unhappy GPL waving, source demanding, end-user........ Since
>this person has pushed the issue of the GPL status of the source to
>the limit and demanded that I give it to him based on the clause #7 of
>the GPL guidelines, even thought I am the author and have the right to
>change the license status at will. There will be no more binaries
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The license may only be changed if all of the authors agree, that
includes anyone who has sent a patch, and anyone who has written
code that was borrowed from other packages such as SysVinit.

>releases until this issue that this person has pressed me into a
>corner that I have not outs. If the source is allowed to be made GPL
>again, everything will be normal again; however, if the status of the
>source can not be changed, apcupsd will be terminated. Because this
>person has left me without any room to move. I am sorry to have
>allowed myself and the packaged to be pressed into almost no-win
>situtation.

Incorrect. This "person" - me - have nothing to do with it. It
is the GPL license that FORCES this. I am merely wanting that
license to be followed because the (at the time) infringement
affects me because the program doesn't work and I cant try and
figure out why by looking at the source.

>Mike, you're a real hero to all of us. Instead of having just binary
>only support we now have no support at all. Thank you very much.

You are very narrow minded with this statement. The program is
GPL. It is not my "fault" that it is gone. I don't care
whatsoever about your opinion on this as it is irrelevant. I am
in the RIGHT as far as legal matters are concerned, and I was
affected. APC benefits from the binary through sales to Linux
users, however I do not benefit because I can't fix the source to
work on my system, and it is GPL.

Grow up.

>>Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocate
>
>"narrow minded idiot without a clue" would be better fitting.

Such comments are very unprofessional, and uncalled for.
Especially in such a public forum such as this.

Please explain how I am narrow minded by my wanting the source to
that program which is GPL'd? Why does the GPL exist in your
opinion?

I'm sure that it angers you that the program is now unavailable,
however, taking it out on me, and casting blame is not going to
solve the problems involved with that software. Public
namecalling is also not a very mature act at all.

Do you think it is "ok" to break the GPL license whenever someone
desires?

Do you think it is "sometimes ok" to break the legal obligations
of the GPL license when one "sees fit"?

Please respond with the answers to these 2 questions.


--
Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocate

Linux software galore: http://freshmeat.net


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.077 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site