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

Re: [f-cpu] last word about license ;-) was Re: encore une couche (was: Re: [f-cpu] License issues GPL/LGPL andJuergen Goeritz' SoC)

On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Andreas Romeyke wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Hello,
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Yann Guidon wrote:
> > i think that we will probably adopt this strategy (if everybody agrees, and
> > principally Michael) But the problem of the GPL remains : we will have to
> > "redefine" several terms of the licence, and it would be better to rewrite
> > it completely to avoid any misunderstanding.
> I discussed this topic a while back- and towards at GAOS. The meaning was
> "if you are the owner of intellectual property, you can explicitly
> describe in which context/topic you want to interprete the GPL (or another
> license). It's independend to that what other means (aka RMS), because he
> (or another) is not the owner of this intellectual property"

I tend to agree.  But we will have to find a common interpretation for
the whole project, not one for each developer, and we'll have to write
it down (in a separate file, because we may not modify the GPL document
without permission from the FSF).

BTW: Since almost everybody on this planet seems to be preparing for
war (some also call it "justice"), I've been thinking about some usage
restrictions.  I don't want my work to control a cruise missile that
kills thousands of people.  IMHO, the freedom to use the F-CPU can not
be infinite.  It must end at the point where F-CPU users actively take
away other people's freedom to live (or any other freedoms / personal
rights -- free speech, privacy, and so on).  The GPL is a little too
"blue-eyed" with respect to that.

 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/