[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:17:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
> > But you can't. There is no point in slapping a license on a
> > distribution when you don't have standing to sue over license breaches
> > since you are not holding copyright to any significant part of it.
> >
> > It only weakens the GPL if you start creating situations where it cannot
> > be taken seriously and/or enforced.
>
> I see. So the widespread use of GPL in projects that don't collect
> assignments is another excuse to declare a piece of software an enemy
> of the movement.
>
> Seriously, I disagree.
Since I cannot even figure out what your strawman is supposed to refer
to, I am not sure what you disagree with.
> > > OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice ... doesn't that undermine your point?
> >
> > If you take a look at R.C.Weir venting off in the comment section
> > of basically every publication delivering a LibreOffice release
> > announcement, that "a little miffed" is not a mere hypothetical.
>
> Once again, if he's really venting about the license (and not about
> "who is the real successor to Sun OpenOffice.org"), that's crazy.
It's rather hard to tell what it is _supposed_ to be about. But it is
not hard to see the license-originating asymmetry of the overall
situation as a driving factor.
> If Apache didn't want to enable one-way code flow, they wouldn't use a
> permissive license.
They are fine with one-way flow into proprietary products. They tend to
be less than enthused about GPLed or LGPLed reuse.
It's like selling a donkey stallion of your own good breed to a mule
breeding farm and you find they mate him with donkeys rather than mares,
creating breeding donkeys competing with your own business.
In other terms: proprietary products don't compete with their community
and their ideas of freedom.
I understand what this is about, but it does demonstrate a sore spot of
the model.
> (Who is R.C.Weir, anyway? I seem to recall a Grateful Dead guitarist
> by that name....)
I think he is something like the principal maintainer of Apache
OpenOffice or close to that, but I don't have all that much of a clue.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, (continued)
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/11
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Richard Stallman, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Florian Weimer, 2014/03/04
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/03/01
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/02
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/03
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/03/04
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/03/05