From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Feb 27 9: 2:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mired.org (dsl-64-192-6-133.telocity.com [64.192.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DB7C37B405 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 61008 invoked by uid 100); 27 Feb 2002 17:01:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15485.4354.561280.729573@guru.mired.org> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:01:54 -0600 To: j mckitrick Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: First test of GPL in court In-Reply-To: <20020227163501.A66574@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20020227142005.A16555@energyhq.homeip.net> <20020227132417.B64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227052928.L12253@rain.macguire.net> <20020227133748.C64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227054428.M12253@rain.macguire.net> <20020227135103.E64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227061336.N12253@rain.macguire.net> <20020227142303.A65635@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <15484.63760.663944.125557@guru.mired.org> <20020227163501.A66574@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: "Mike Meyer" X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.46 (Python 2.2; freebsd-4.5-STABLE-i386) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org j mckitrick types: > | what makes me think that so much stuff is GPL'ed not because people > | are deceived by RMS, or agree with his goals, but because sharing > | software is something that resonates in the hacker community. > > But they should realize the best form of sharing means no strings > attached. Much of that 'shareware' was public domain. > Yes, but much of that "public domain shareware" had statements in it saying things like "not for commercial use." Some of it had the authors copyright, some didn't. All that really demonstrates is that most of the authors had no inkling about either copyright law or what public domain really meant. I agree that the best form of sharing is "no strings attached", and the only software I've released that wasn't under something similar to the BSD license was because of licensing restrictions that were on the software before I got it. But if we're going to allow people to distribute software under the condition that the recipients not redistribute it at all, then allowing them to distribute software under the conditions that the recipients only redistribute it with source and under the same conditions seems to be very reasonable. In fact, given the choice between the two, I'll take the latter every time. Fortunately there other choices. > Makes me feel ancient at 30 years old. Would it help if I talked about exchanging 9-track tapes of MVS software with my colleagues? http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message