Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:35:10 +0100 From: Nils Holland <nils@tisys.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca>, Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <20011218193510.A23697@tisys.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 10:14:06AM -0700 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217222907.028403b0@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112180119550.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 10:14:06AM -0700, Brett Glass stood up and spoke: > > The parts that will take the longest to reimplement properly -- it will > be a multi-year effort to remove them -- are the toolchain. FreeBSD should > never have become dependent upon the GNU tools, because the FSF owns them > lock, stock and barrel. The FSF can, at any time, restrict the use or > distribution of these tools. (I believe that it is Richard Stallman's plan > to wait until GCC wipes out most or all commercial C compilers and then > require that all output of the compiler be licensed under the GPL. He > cannot pull this "bait and switch" just yet, but in a few years he will > be able to. If he does, the projects most at risk are the BSDs. (Bruce > Perens has already stated that he wants "Version 3" of the GPL to limit > the use of the output of GPLed programs. It's just a matter of waiting > until the community's head is fully inserted into the noose.) We must begin > planning now for this development, to which the FSF's agenda and > Stallman's malice against commercial developers (or anything -- including > the BSDs -- that offers them aid and comfort) will inevitably and > inexorably lead. May I ask, just out of interest, how it comes that you have *such a strong* dislike against the FSF, GPL and RMS that you portray them as the ultimate devils? As I have already said, I'm not the biggest fan of the GPL either, and the licensing discussion certainly is of at least some importance, but I would like to understand your reasons for actually coming up with such *diabolic* theories. Furthermore, I don't currently see a legally or real-world enforcible way to restirct the output of GPLed software. If I only use some GPLed software in order to write something down and then print it, I don't think that a license can force my output to fall under the same license. As such, I guess that if I wrote myself a C program and compiled it, I don't believe that any license would serious (legally) be able to require that my output also falls under the GPL automatically. These are, I think, some weird theories - at least I have not seen any signs of them being true so far. Greetings Nils -- Nils Holland Ti Systems - FreeBSD in Tiddische, Germany http://www.tisys.org * nils@tisys.org 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?20011218193510.A23697>