lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him (YAWN)
Date
Andre...

Who wrote that? It's clear and I can understand it!

;-)

jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Hedrick" <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: "Dean McEwan" <dean.mcewan@eudoramail.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <abramo.bagnara@libero.it>; "Richard
Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him (YAWN)


>
> Dean,
>
> Have you ever pondered the question why some of the new code in 2.5 is
> coming up with a dual-license of OSL/GPL ? Is it because OSL has some
> meaningful terms understood by the courts? Is it because the folks at OSI
> understand a bigger picture?
>
> See I found it worthy enough to go and investigate.
>
> What I found, I like.
>
> So if the question was put before everyone to examine the OSL, is this a
> better and stronger license to protect the ideas of "free software" ?
>
> If the conclusions resulted a large positive movement towards OSL and away
> from GPL, what do you expect the reponse from RMS would be to the
> following:
>
> Richard, is there a way to make OSL and GPL compatable ?
> Richard, will you allow OSL and GPL to coexist ?
> Richard, can OSL superceed GPL ?
> Richard, can you agree there may be a better license than GPL ?
> Richard, if people want to develop under OSL, what are the results
> of the combined work?
> Richard, if GPL can be improved by the adoption of OSL ideas,
> what benefits are there to you idea to holding onto the
> past?
>
>
> My concern is that vision and ideas started by RMS, are being clouded.
> OSL could have some more bit added to it, requiring the return of the
> changes to the original author, or the offending party is required to pay
> an alteration royality fee.
>
> I do not know the what the best answer is today.
>
> However, I am willing to put my money down (if I ever make any now) to
> draft a licenses that empowers the community with a real legal strong hold
> to protect its interest of Open Source, and keeping it open.
>
> I like may other developers have/know/seen their work altered and not
> returned, yet without having a license with some teeth based in law
> already tried in courts, the personal risk is to great to pursue.
>
> If I am a bad person for wanting to empower the community with stonger
> license than GPL, IMHO is superior to GPL, then I will gladdy be a bad
> person.
>
> What we all hear is one person promoting one agenda with one idea, and the
> idea has clouded the vision. If another idea can carry the original
> vision further and closer to achieving that of the visionary, why stop
> half way down the road ?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
> I have had enough of the mud slinging.
> Oh, I think your address should be restored, regardless.
> Did you know you can remove GPL from your work, but you can not take back
> what is out there now?
>


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.049 / U:1.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site