Prev: Call for papers: HPCS-10, USA, July 2010
Next: Tips to Speed up Your Windows 7 Experience
From: whygee on 7 Mar 2010 22:03
David Brown wrote:
> Please, don't read anything written by RMS unless you like deep
> philosophy. Great things have come from RMS and his dedication to free
> software, including the GPL, the gnu project, Linux as it is today, and
> endless pieces of software. But he is more than a touch fanatical, and
> takes an unmovable position that keeping any software closed or
> restricted in any way is morally wrong.

ok, so why read the licences and their intents at all ?
let's just put a (c) at the top of each file and ...
whatever happens happens...

> That makes a lot of sense for a lot of software on PC's and servers, but
> is impractical and unreasonable for most embedded systems - RMS
> steadfastly refuses to see this issue. This is a shame - it would not
> take much effort to produce an ELGPL (Embedded Library GPL) that
> specifically allowed static linking with non-(EL)GPL'ed code, making it
> an ideal choice for code such as your hamming code library.

why don't you start this effort ?
look at the affero GPL : it's a similar derivation and idea.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html
what is great with freedom is it's even better when you can
use it, along with the tools developped for it.
RMS has his own windmill, and you bark at another pole...
but you CAN affect things, the GPL is one choice among others.

I salute Jon's ideas of thinking about, and using the LGPL,
even though there may be reasons not to do it.
But 1) he wrote the code 2) releases it openly 3) listen
to other's comments. If in the end 4) eGPL is written,
then that would be even better. It's not my pole but
i'll help you bark if you want.

> An "official" GPL variant like that would encourage more open source in
> embedded development - perhaps not as "free" as RMS would like, but
> certainly more open and free than a lot of embedded code is today.

just.
do.
it.

it's not about RMS.

yg
--
http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
From: David Brown on 8 Mar 2010 03:47
On 08/03/2010 04:03, whygee wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Please, don't read anything written by RMS unless you like deep
>> philosophy. Great things have come from RMS and his dedication to free
>> software, including the GPL, the gnu project, Linux as it is today,
>> and endless pieces of software. But he is more than a touch fanatical,
>> and takes an unmovable position that keeping any software closed or
>> restricted in any way is morally wrong.
>
> ok, so why read the licences and their intents at all ?
> let's just put a (c) at the top of each file and ...
> whatever happens happens...
>

I have read the licenses and their intentions, faqs, and various opinion
pieces by RMS.

Don't get me wrong here - I am not anti-RMS, or anti-GPL or anything of
the sort. I have a lot of respect for the man, and am very grateful for
the work he has done. I am glad he believes what he believes, and is so
dedicated to working for those ideals.

However, that doesn't mean that I personally agree with everything he
stands for. I believe there is a place for closed source software as
well as open source software.

And I think it is fair to point out to people that RMS /is/ fanatical,
and you have to understand that when reading his articles. He doesn't
compromise well, and he is not normally interested in giving a balanced
argument. So if you look in his writings, hoping to learn how to mix
your closed source code with other people's free source code, you'll be
told that it is wrong to try to mix it, and you should open up your own
code.

RMS can be likened to the Green party in politics. I'm very glad they
are there, shouting loudly when necessary and keeping other parties a
little more honest. But I wouldn't want them running the country.

>> That makes a lot of sense for a lot of software on PC's and servers,
>> but is impractical and unreasonable for most embedded systems - RMS
>> steadfastly refuses to see this issue. This is a shame - it would not
>> take much effort to produce an ELGPL (Embedded Library GPL) that
>> specifically allowed static linking with non-(EL)GPL'ed code, making
>> it an ideal choice for code such as your hamming code library.
>
> why don't you start this effort ?
> look at the affero GPL : it's a similar derivation and idea.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html
> what is great with freedom is it's even better when you can
> use it, along with the tools developped for it.
> RMS has his own windmill, and you bark at another pole...
> but you CAN affect things, the GPL is one choice among others.
>
> I salute Jon's ideas of thinking about, and using the LGPL,
> even though there may be reasons not to do it.
> But 1) he wrote the code 2) releases it openly 3) listen
> to other's comments. If in the end 4) eGPL is written,
> then that would be even better. It's not my pole but
> i'll help you bark if you want.
>
>> An "official" GPL variant like that would encourage more open source
>> in embedded development - perhaps not as "free" as RMS would like, but
>> certainly more open and free than a lot of embedded code is today.
>
> just.
> do.
> it.
>
> it's not about RMS.
>

It is certainly true that the eGPL does not have to come from RMS, and
that you, me, or others here could write it. But at best it would be
jut another variant on the GPL. We are neither lawyers, nor industry
heavyweights, and it is unlikely that our eGPL would be used by others.
I suppose that doesn't matter, however, and it might be interesting to
try.


From: whygee on 8 Mar 2010 05:18
David Brown wrote:
> It is certainly true that the eGPL does not have to come from RMS, and
> that you, me, or others here could write it. But at best it would be
> jut another variant on the GPL. We are neither lawyers, nor industry
> heavyweights, and it is unlikely that our eGPL would be used by others.
> I suppose that doesn't matter, however, and it might be interesting to try.

I know well that RMS does miss the neuron for crompo... pronco... whatever.

however, his lesson is simple :
the US copyright law and international treaties provide
the authors of original works, including *us*, the
right to choose the terms and conditions of the spread
of our works. RMS implemented "copyleft" for his agenda,
great, particularly considering the fact that he's
basicly a math geek, not a lawyer. But he understood
that the law is not here just to make our life more tedious.

The point I want to make is :
We don't have to write the GPL.
Simply writing honnestly and clearly
what we want, how and why is already
the beginning of a licence.
And it's has much better chances to
be read by the end users than M$'s EULA.


> it is unlikely that our eGPL would be used by others.
If it works for your case, why care about the others ?

Now, sure, there is the risk of licence dillution,
fragmentation etc. But we are the authors and have
the final right to decide what and how it is distributed.
There is no law that forbids writing new licences.

So go on and write us a draft for eGPL,
i'll be glad to help a bit :-)

yg, not speaking for FSF Inc. :-)
--
http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Call for papers: HPCS-10, USA, July 2010
Next: Tips to Speed up Your Windows 7 Experience