[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3 |
Date: |
Thu, 18 May 2006 13:19:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> > FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X,
> > isn't developed by the FSF.
>
> Neither are the FTP clients.
>
> So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system?
> Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU inetutils also provides part of the GNU
> system?
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/>
InetUtils is a collection of common network programs. It includes
(amongst others):
* An ftp client and server.
* A telnet client and server.
* An rsh client and server.
* An rlogin client and server.
* A tftp client and server.
These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > There is a difference between assembling a system, and
> > developing its components. The FSF certainly does not develop
> > X11.
> >
> > Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, .... I
> > fail to see what protocols have to do with this.
>
> So does anybody else. The protocols are a blatant red herring
> brought up by yourself. The topic is the programs and libraries
> constituting a GNU system. And those are to a significant degree
> developed by third parties and used as components in a compilation.
>
> Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I
> guess it too isn't part of the GNU system.
Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity
(with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright
assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity.
However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically been
distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be considered
aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line here, however,
since copyright and license for the components in distribution rest
with FSF and the GPL.
> Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have the
> GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat.
It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
however, is licensed under the LGPL.
> > As the head for the GNU project he is responsible for it. He
> > might not have written every single line, but he is the head of
> > the GNU project, whether you like it or not. And that is what
> > St. IGNUcius says.
>
> It is irrelevant to the copyright situation.
>
> The copyright situation doesn't dictate if something is part or not
> of an operating system, or a project.
Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be
about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and that
concerns its copyright situation and nothing else.
You really should get a mail client suitable for your short attention
span.
> GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many projects,
> yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU projects which are
> part of the GNU system.
Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation with
regard to the copyright situation.
> Please do something useful, it is quite sad that you cannot even
> acknowledge that you are simply trolling right now.
Not sharing your delusions is hardly trolling.
> I sometimes wonder if you are infact worse than Alexander, atleast
> he can be funny at times.
You mean: at least you don't look too silly in comparison with him.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/17
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18