[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: UML cooperation
From: |
vio |
Subject: |
Re: UML cooperation |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:11:15 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.4i |
* Andrew Hill <address@hidden> [001030 10:47]:
> > Let's put it like this. The gnue project is my first encounter with a GNU
> > project, so I didn't know how you do things around here. Let's say that
> > FSF's policy of excluding non-open source tools from your toolset comes as
> > a big shock to me. This simply because my concept of "freedom" goes
> > something like "the freedom to use whatever tool I (I would like to
> > emphasize the "I" here) choose" (including non-open source). While in your
> > concept the choice is not made by me, but by FSF. Hence my shock: I just
> > don't appreciate that choice being taken away from me for whatever
> > well-intentionned reason. I still don't get (probably never will) why FSF
> > cares "how" I build my code. As long as that code is released under GNU
> > license, what does it matter ??? (I know Derek's answer, it's just not very
> > convincing for me).
>
> The freedom of free software is for the benfit of the user, not the
> developer.
We seem to be running in circles here, arguing on semantics. Nevertheless,
allow me a small answer.
First, if the gnue team is comfortable with these constraints, good for you
(use what you are comfortable with first and foremost !!).
Second, I believe that ALL developers are also users (with some exceptions, of
course), especially in the open source realm, hence your argument is only
semantics and isn't relevant, in my view.
Third, I still can't see the legal relationship FSF is implying between "code"
and "tool" used in the development of that code. You nor Derek are making the
case for why (perhaps because this is getting out of scope for this list, and I
must agree), if I want to release my source code under GNU license, I MUST
exclude all non-GNU development tools. Judging a tool NOT on technical merits
but on whether it releases its source code public is plain ridiculous.
What prevents me from releasing MY C++ code under GNU license even if I
developed with tools like RR or Microsoft's VisualC++ ? It's My code (not
Microsoft's or Rational's, they just sell tools !!!). Even if I had to pay for
the tools I used in developing it, I own copyright over it (not MS or
Rational), so I alone can decide to release it under the license of my choice.
I really don't see why FSF believe this code has become tainted and is less
worthy (I'm not judging here the technical merits) than code developed with GNU
tools.
In other words, I continue to believe that the legal relationship you are
implying between licenses on source code and the licenses on the tools used in
developing that source code is non-existant, and neither Microsoft, Rational,
Sun (for its java tools), or whoever, is making any legal claim whatsoever over
code developed with their tools. If they attempted such a scheme, they'd be out
of the development tools business in no time. Again, apologies to those who
find this post out-of place on this list. I know gnue won't change its ways of
doing things, and you shouldn't if you're comfortable with it.
A better explanation to this situation may come from a more strategic theater:
FSF is apparently enforcing a policy of discriminating against non-GNU code
amongst their ranks, in a move to favor the development of open source code.
This would make more sense to me. Good. But since I am not on FSF's payroll
(figure of speech), I am free to express my opinion that technical merit should
outweight licensing policies, and not the other way around (or FSF's way). This
being said, go gnue !
Regards - Vio
- RE: UML cooperation, (continued)
- RE: UML cooperation, Derek Neighbors, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, vmilitaru, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, Derek Neighbors, 2000/10/26
- RE: UML cooperation, Micheal J, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, vio, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, Derek Neighbors, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, Rodrigo Moya, 2000/10/26
- Re: UML cooperation, Andrew Hill, 2000/10/30
- Re: UML cooperation, vmilitaru, 2000/10/30
- Re: UML cooperation, Andrew Hill, 2000/10/30
- Re: UML cooperation,
vio <=
- RE: UML cooperation, Micheal J, 2000/10/30
- RE: UML cooperation, Micheal J, 2000/10/30
- RE: UML cooperation, Micheal J, 2000/10/26
RE: UML cooperation, Alejandro Imass, 2000/10/26
Re: UML cooperation, Alejandro Imass, 2000/10/30