[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software

From: Aaron R. Kulkis
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:56:47 -0500

Les Mikesell wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <> wrote in message
> > Jeffrey Siegal <> writes:
> >
> > > Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > > My opinion is
> > > > that as a linguist, he easily understood the deceptive nature of the
> > > > and realized that it was unsuitable by itself
> > >
> > > Frankly, I don't believe that very many people -- aside from a few
> > > anti-GPL zealots -- really care about the "deceptive nature" of the GPL
> > > or of the term "free software."
> I think it is the other way around.   After understanding the deceptive
> nature, people become anti-GPL.
> > > Anyone who takes a little bit of time to look into the issue can easily
> > > determine what the terms of the GPL are, and what the FSF means by the
> > > term "free software" which it coined.  It may not be the same term that
> > > some other people would use, but so bit it.  It's just a name.
> >
> > Not true.
> Yes, I think the people who did RIPEM were very surprised
> that they were not permitted to distribute unrestricted code
> that contained calls to the gpm library and had to rewrite
> the work-alike fgpm because of the legal threats.
> > Many people misunderstand the license and think that it means "if you
> > modify my code and distribute it, you must give me the changes".  It
> > doesn't mean that at all, it means "If you use my code in any sort of
> > development effort, no matter how disparate, and distribute it, you
> > must make *all* your code GPL-compatible licensed as well".  See the
> > difference?
> Much worse than that: you can't share your effort of combining
> existing freely available code into larger works if any
> (but not all) of the parts are under the GPL.   That is, since
> it is impossible to change the copyright on other existing code
> not already encumbered by the GPL, you cannot redistribute
> it at all, even though all of previous components are freely
> available and you do not wish to add additional restrictions
> on your work.

I wouldn't say that.

You can legally create a CD which has some GPL-ware, and some
seperately-developed code that is under any other license...
just as long as the non-GPL code doesn't directly reference
the GPL source code.

For example, if you develop a package that opens up, say, a
kfm window, that does NOT require you to GPL your code just
because you have the line

        system ( "kfm");

embedded within your code.

Conversely, if you decide to take lines of kfm.c and use it
in your code, or have something like

#include "kfm.h"

THEN you are required to put your code under the GPL, because
you are using GPL-source code in your work.

It all depends upon the relation and status of individual SOURCE
CODE files, *NOT* whether your code forks off processes that are
stand-alone GPL programs.

>   Les Mikesell

Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642

K: Truth in advertising:
        Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
        Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
        Special Interest Sierra Club,
        Anarchist Members of the ACLU
        Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
        The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
        Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,

J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
   The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
   also known as old hags who've hit the wall....

I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
   challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
   between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
   Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole

H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

G:'re a retard.

F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.

E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
   her behavior improves.

D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.

B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
   method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
   direction that she doesn't like.

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]