Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 May 1999 20:44:33 -0700
From:      "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To:        <cjclark@home.com>
Cc:        <adam@whizkidtech.net>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: Richard Stallman came to town
Message-ID:  <000001be9cf2$ea4c4c00$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
In-Reply-To: <199905130332.XAA11617@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

> I don't see how some people's ignorance can be blamed on GNU. It's
> like blaming the gun manufaturer for someone being shot, or the
> cigarette maker for someone getting cancer... oh, wait, we do blame
> that on them now-a-days.

	If gun makers knowingly sold guns to people who didn't know how to use
them, it would be logical to hold them responsible. If cigarette makers
represented their cigarettes as safe to smoke while knowing they weren't, it
would be logical to hold them responsible.

	I'm very curious why cigarette makers don't just come clean and say that
smoking can kill you. If you smoke cigarettes, you are taking a risk. Many
people knowingly take risks for pleasure, it's much like skiing.

	There is a big difference between responsibility for actions taken with
full knowledge, and responsibility for duping people into making decisions
without full knowledge.

> > 	Everybody loses. This is typical. This is intentional.
>
> It is intentional. But Stallman would say that the fault lies not with GNU
> but with the proprietary software you were forced to use.

	If he said that, it'd be awfully strange. Does he think there's something
wrong with refusing to require your customers to accept software with
disclaimers?

> Funny thing
> here is, if there was no GNU, how would this outcome have been any
> different? Would you still have most likely ended up with proprietary
> software?

	Umm, no. It is my belief that many people GPL/GLL their code out of
ignorance. If not for the GPL/GLL they'd have released their code under less
restrictive terms, and then more people could use it and benefit from it.

> Out of curiousity, what was too restrictive about gdbm's license if
> you would have made the code changes freely available?

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

	Our legal department will not accept any 'forced speech' and will not
permit us to foist any disclaimers upon our customers.

	DS



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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001be9cf2$ea4c4c00$021d85d1>