Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:14:03 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix Message-ID: <20110617061403.4f8de5b9.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110617033554.GA70298@guilt.hydra> References: <20110616162032.GN5630@external.screwed.box> <3d43539af0e60964a0406b8df304f16c.squirrel@www.magehandbook.com> <20110616182011.GO5630@external.screwed.box> <20110616184620.GB68867@guilt.hydra> <20110616192133.GP5630@external.screwed.box> <1B9EDB7CFB3ABCAA2E566153@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <20110617000708.GR5630@external.screwed.box> <20110617025040.fbbf4c8b.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110617030316.GB69974@guilt.hydra> <20110617053842.2ee905b9.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110617033554.GA70298@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email > addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following > this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after > my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user > agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who > would probably like to see archives that strip such information from > headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the > email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail > user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam > email list spiders to reap. Thanks for the advice, I've just made the setting (I'm using the Sylpheed MUA). I didn't pay much attention to that (although I'm aware of the topic) as mailing list publishing systems put in the "From:" datafield (directed at the list) automatically, so all the names and addresses are already in there. I will keep that setting as it sounds the right thing to do. Other possibly needed information (like addresses) are in the mail header anyway. > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:38:42AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > > > Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, > > > > considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without > > > > mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the > > > > "rape me" BSD-style licenses, the "contribute back" GPL licenses, > > > > and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into > > > > mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with > > > > programs. > > > > > > I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink > > > the phrasing "rape me" as a description of copyfree licensing terms as > > > embodied in a BSD License? > > > > It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from > > the repeated discussion of "the BSD license being not free" with the > > counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows > > the "post-usage" of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it, > > give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with > > this kind of "post-usage", he can use the BSD license. > > > > Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own > > ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual > > requirements. > > Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too > many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for > my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of > the art, as explained here: > > Code Reuse and Technological Advancement > http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21 Interesting article, and helpful for further argumentation. Thank you! Exactly my point of view. Bookmarked. > > > Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. > > > > Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it "do > > unlawful things". But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost > > write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha! > > Now you're mixing up EULAs and contracts again. EULAs are licenses. The part "LA" in EULA means "license agreement", so I assume this indicates that I have to agree to something, and an agreement between two parties is a... contract. The vendor allows me to do certain things with the software _if_ I agree to the terms. If I do _not_, I am not legally allowed to use the software, will loose warranty or am even forced to return the whole computer system. Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and may therefore cultivate just one opinion about one topic (instead of two opinions). :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110617061403.4f8de5b9.freebsd>