[linux-elitists] Re: [SPAM] Re: GPL Violations [was Re: Mobile Phone Choices]
Sat Jul 29 00:31:50 PDT 2006
On Saturday 29 July 2006 01:08, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:38:22AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Friday 28 July 2006 20:27, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:08:17PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > > I realise the MS EULA is much more complex than the GPL (and in most
> > > > regards, more restrictive.)
> > >
> > > Uh? Most?
> > > Could you, like, enlighten me and tell me *one* thing *any* non-free
> > > non-source EULA allows me to do that a free one does not?
> > Well, for once I can develop commercial, proprietary software using Java
> > or most everything from Microsoft, that I cannot using the GPL.
> Uh? (again)
> If you mean 'I can derive propietary sw from MS or java' you're wrong, you
> If you mean 'I can use MS or java to develop propietary sw', well, you
> can also use whatever-free-environment-you-like to
> develop propietary sw. So you're wrong, too.
What I meant was that I can develop a software that will link against some
libraries by MS or Javasoft, and I can then be free to distribute it as
commercial, proprietary software. On the other hand, I cannot do it with a
GPL library without making sure my software's source is included and it is
freely distributable (under a GPL-compatible licence).
> > > > ... SleepyCat
> > > > licence, which is GPL-like, but simpler (allows proprietary
> > > > sourceware to link against it.).
> > >
> > > I don't follow this. Why is 'has fewer restrictions' an argument
> > > towards 'is simpler'.
> > Well, the SleepyCat licence is 3 or 4 paragraphs that I had no problem to
> > understand, just by reading them. But I couldn't understand the GPL. The
> > GPL goes to great lengthes to explain what is acceptable and what isn't.
> > The SleepyCat licence is more simpler.
> Well, but it's simpler because it's shorter, not because it has fewer
> restrictions. And, it might just be that by not explaining at length
> it could create confusion as to what it means (how does one *know*
> when true understanding has been reached?) which would make it more
> problematic, which does not necesarily fit into my definition of 'simpler'.
> (But then, I was kind of baiting, by taking a literal
> reading of what you wrote)
Shlomi Fish firstname.lastname@example.org
Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then
destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets.
More information about the linux-elitists