Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:53:43 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Looking for sendmail logfile analysis tool Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011128184342.04077040@localhost> In-Reply-To: <gqlmgqs8mc.mgq@localhost.localdomain> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011128122559.044e5790@localhost> <3.0.5.32.20011123162453.00bb86d0@199.107.2.1> <3.0.5.32.20011123162453.00bb86d0@199.107.2.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20011128122559.044e5790@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:50 PM 11/28/2001, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >There aren't many that can resist the poisoned apple like that. Way to >be. Makes me glad I switched from GNU/Linux last year. My long term hope for the BSDs is that they will be able to spit out the bits of the apple that they have ingested -- to wit, the GNU toolchain and some of the GNU utilities. It'd be truly great to run a BSD that's ENTIRELY BSD-licensed, and I'm convinced that if the four open source BSD projects pooled their resources they could do it in short order. >But if you ever decide that "free license" (truly or not) is too >oxymoronic to use with a straight face, you might consider using the >term "wide open license". I've been using the term "truly free," because (a) the GPL does not make software "free" at all; and (b) people seem to really like the word "free," as irrational as that may be. >Unfortunately, web page >http://www.dspguru.com/wol2.htm claims that the capitalized form and >acronym are trademarks. I don't know about that, but I'm sure that use of the term "truly free" is not violating any claimed or actual trademark. Hey, even Stallman grudgingly admits that BSD-licensed software is "free." What he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge is that GPLed software isn't. But enough about philosophy.... >Concerning GPL contamination via DTDs: > >If this is an old topic, excuse me; it's the first I've seen mention of >it. I'm wondering how similar this is to GPL contamination via IDL >source in the CORBA world. (GPL and GPL-incompatible programs >communicating via CORBA, using Interface-Definition-Language-specified >interfaces.) I'm pretty sure that RMS ruled IDL files basically >uncopyrightable (unenforcable anyway) since there is basically only >one way to specify the interface. Stallman can't "rule" that something is or isn't subject to copyright. If you incorporate someone else's code -- and DTDs are, arguably, "code" in a declarative language -- you run the risk of being accused of copyright infringement. >Anyway, are DTDs sufficiently like an interface to use similar >arguments? (I think the argument depends on interfaceness, not >just lack of creative variations, but I'm not sure.) I don't know, but wouldn't risk it. I can define a file format just as easily as they can, and so I'll do so. But if I so much as look at their GPLed files, I can be accused of being "contaminated." I don't want to deal with the possible consequences of that. Besides, if my work is "truly free," then commercial developers will prefer it and adopt it and it will become the de facto standard. The folks with the GPLed DTD will ultimately either adopt it or remain stubbornly incompatible and outside the mainstream. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011128184342.04077040>