Re: [Octal-dev] distro issues, etc.

[Steve Mosher]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Neil Nelson wrote:

        Does this ever have the potential to spark a Holy War. I know RMS
is quite... forceful of his position, but personally, I like the way it
works, and I agree with the paradigm... but, I wouldn't consider shoving
it down people's throats... so don't take this the wrong way...

> One of the reasons I provide this work is so that those who use it will
> have made an agreement that I will be recognized for the work.  I do not
> require that anyone other than the current legal system provide the
> customary enforcement of that agreement.  But you must realize that GNU's
> claims of being for free software and against copyrights but at the same
> time being willing to enforce their own version of, say, copyright law is
> a bit of a stretch and fundamentally inconsistent.

        Not entirely. GNU wishes a state of no copyright law, and no
intellectual property law. The best that can be done is to emulate that
within the given copyright laws and IP laws. I find this rather mature,
the other option is to ignore the existing laws and steal information --
which doesn't work out very well.
        Personally, I *like* the GPL, and I wish that it was known to be
enforceable. At the same time, I have nothing but respect for the decision
*not* to release under the GPL -- it's _your_ choice as a coder.

> Clearly, if you will not accept my software in your distribution, I am
> throwing software at a brick wall.  Software becomes essentially free
> when there are recognized free locations from where it can be obtained.

        If dto (Dave, are you going for the ESR / RMS thing where everyone
knows you by three letters, and have netwide fame for it?) can't bundle
your code with the octal distro, it shouldn't be a problem. From what I
understand, you'd prefer a different license for your code anyhow, so
maybe a supplimentry bundle of machines under a simpler license would make
sense. I don't see how link offsite would cause a problem for this...

> Apparently, we need to have the same arrangement with GNU as RedHat
> does so that we can give proper credit, make a central, consolidated
> distribution, and then make money or not as we please.

        I think it's a hosting terms issue, since I've seen no end of
programs that have three or more licences peppered throughout the code,
including the GPL -- all in the same tarball, sometimes in the same -file-
(which involved lengthy comments at the top about what belonged to who.)

        I personally don't think that this situation even approximates a
problem. I say host the machines elsewhere until they're actually licensed
under the GPL, certainly they can be linked to from the main site.

-- 
Shop smart, shop S-Mart!
        - Ash