[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: gpl licensing

From: Aragorn
Subject: Re: gpl licensing
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:14 GMT
User-agent: KNode/0.7.6

On Sunday 03 December 2006 12:42, David Kastrup stood up and addressed the
masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:

> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> writes:
>> On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
>> addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
>>> [...]
>>> Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
>>> list/newsgroup so isn't it weird that someone hangs around here trying
>>> to destroy the very purpose of this list or of Free Software?
>> I'm still new to this group myself and I will therefore not jump to
>> any conclusions, least of all calling people a troll without further
>> and sufficient evidence.  From what I could make up so far,
>> Alexander seems to be someone who doesn't like GPLv3, but that's all
>> I know at this stage.
> GPL in any version, and the FSF and all its members and associates in
> particular.

Now that really is a pity...  In my opinion, although RMS may come across as
a bit pedantic sometimes - but maybe he needs to be in order to have a
sufficient enough impact - I think he's done a wonderful thing by creating
the GNU concept, and GNU/Linux would simply not be what it is today if it
hadn't been for RMS's initiative in 1983.

In addition, although I'm not a lawyer and legalese easily confuses me - I'm
not a natively English speaker and I am afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome
- I see nothing wrong with GPL version 3, for as much as I know of it.  In
fact, I've read the transcription of the Tokyo conference Ciaran O'Riordan
posted here earlier, and I can only agree with the new additions to the

> Don't let yourself be surprised if he posts references 
> that seem to indicate otherwise: [...

This was indeed confusing.  After having read several of his posts, it
didn't seem quite clear to me on where Alexander stands with regard to Free
Software.  I did however notice the sneering comments at Rui earlier.

> ...] in his rather bizarre views they don't.  That is the reason that he
> enthusiastically posts all details of ongoing court cases, then getting
> completely baffled by the actual verdicts, calling the judges drunk,
> insane, brain-washed and other things because he can't reconcile the
> verdicts with his interpretation of the proceedings of the case.

I prefer clarity under all circumstances, so I would then also prefer it if
Alexander were to express his views and the motives to his stances more
clearly.  Then at least, people would know whom they are talking to (or who
is talking to them). ;-)

Back on /comp.os.linux.advocacy,/ there was also someone there who showed a
strong preference for Windows - although for technical reasons, he also
liked GNU/Linux - and a strong stance against the GPL.  

When asked repeatedly what his motives were or where he got his information
from regarding his Windows advocacy - many of us believed that he was
somehow affiliated with Microsoft as he obviously knew a lot of inside
stuff - he always kept avoiding the subject and even mentioned "that he had
signed a non-disclosure agreement" and "was not allowed to talk of that
subject any further".

It is my belief that people should be free to choose what they do with the
software on their computer - in the FSF sense - and that knowledge belongs
to the public.  It is also my belief that only through the sharing of
knowledge and through honest cooperation, mankind will be able to evolve
and solve all of its technical and social problems.  

I am however aware of the /naivité/ in these expectations, as they require a
level of intelligence that unfortunately rises above that of the majority
of the population of this planet.

Sadly enough, the bulk of what we ironically call "the free world" is not
free at all and is being held at ransom by monopolies and the greed that
drives them.  Just because Darwin's laws apply to nature doesn't mean that
we as intelligent beings should cherish them.  Not if we want to have hope
that humanity will not ultimately selfdestruct or will allow nature to
destroy us. ;-)

It's not a matter of being a "peaceloving tree-hugger", but of common
sense. ;-)

With kind regards,

(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

reply via email to

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