Re: gEDA-user: strange build failure

[Evan Lavelle <sa212+geda@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

al davis wrote:

> As DJ said ...  "don't talk about a license unless you've 
> actually read it and understand it."

Indeed; I agree entirely. I personally have read it, in detail, several 
times, and have also seen a number of (mostly pseudo-)legal commentaries 
on it. I believe that I understand v2 as much as it's reasonably 
possible to understand it, given the ambiguities in its drafting, and 
it's limited legal testing.

Note that I didn't say that you can't make money on a GPL'ed licence; 
the FAQ is clear on that issue. The issue is whether you can use the 
code without strings attached, and you can't. In this respect, it's no 
better than a patent. A patent disseminates knowledge - there must be 
full disclosure - but there are also strings attached. In this case, the 
quid pro quo is that the issuing government grants a limited-time 
monopoly on the exploitation of that knowledge. GPL'ed software also 
disseminates knowledge, with full disclosure. The quid pro quo lies in 
the fine details of how you can use that knowledge, how you can combine 
it with your own knowledge, and the restrictions placed on that combined 
knowledge. In both cases, you can make arrangements with the licensor 
for commercial exploitation.

If you want to share knowledge, and you have the courage of your 
convictions, then you give it away, *no* strings attached. That's what 
universities are for. If I write a book on a technical subject, then 
that's precisely what I do. If I answer a particularly complex question 
on Usenet somewhere, then that's what I'm doing. In none of these cases 
do I add specific riders about how precisely my knowledge may be used, 
nor do I prohibit its use in circumstances that I personally do not 
approve of; that would be absurd. That's *real* freedom. Where is the 
"freedom" that is so continuously talked about in the GPL documentation? 
Why is it necessary to define four different sorts of "freedoms"? Why is 
a large amount of the GPL documentation about detecting violations and 
reporting offenders? In what country, exactly, does all this count as 
"freedom"? Or is just....

ideology?

I've never been involved in (or even seen) a rational discussion of 
software licensing, and I don't want to get involved in a flamefest now. 
I'm only replying to your and DJ's message because of the quote above 
which is, on the face of it, both condescending and irritating, but I'm 
prepared to believe that it was intended as neither. If you or anyone 
else gets this far and wants to reply to me, I suggest you do it offline.

Evan


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user