On 05 Aug 2004 04:34:43 +0200, calmar wrote:
>
[...]
calmar: it seems you take non-personal generic answers personally.
Please don't. It is like to be offended if pointed to FAQ #0.1.
I really hoped to avoid any discussion, because this list does not deal
with the software licenses, but you continue to force these links as
something "interesting", so it seems that some clarification may help.
> Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give
> Stallman any possibility to influence your future.
In my opinion, this is a paranoid statement that does not match the
predictable behaviour of RMS. Don't forget we all use his definition of
Free Software (four basic freedoms if you remember), because this is the
only widely accepted definition. There is no other man to be as
consistent and persistent regarding Free Software as RMS. I met him in
the real life once, so I may say this. He is a hippie; stating he worries
about his own personal glory and profit (or even better "control of the
world") is nothing but false.
Returning to the GPL or LGPL license tweaking. Developers may use any
license they want, but they should be aware, if they change the canonical
license, the software is no longer freely mixable with all other software
under the canonical license. If you want to be the most helpful to
others, use the canonical license, don't invent your own changes to it,
there is no need to have isolated sets of GPL'd and almost GPL'd software.
> No, I do not attack the GNU GPL really.
You posted a link to the article titled "GPL bad". Anti-GPL articles
(especially the ones that can't even expand "GPL" acronym correctly) are
not welcome on this list. The topology site is down, but Google has the
cached version.
The same article has multiple attacks on FSF, and even on OSI. I would
say, at least the topology site is a set of anti Free Software articles.
Such attacks on GPL, GNU and FSF are not new. Certain all-known companies
use similar FUD arguments.
> No, I do *NOT* accect rude things against me, when I only want to
> 'share' (what I think) interesting links.
This is a technical list, there are normally no personal (political)
discussions here, this one is a sorry exception.
I think I explained why these links are off-topic and a bit rude to the
fvwm developers that believe in Free Software.
> And saying it's my fault, that people are rude against me, just because
> I post two links, is not acceptable (for me), or let's say I have
> better to do, therefore
You should accept that this is a two edged sword. There are some rules
that define offtopic messages rude, top-posts rude, huge signatures
rude, posting links that may annoy the developers rude and so on.
> (o_ It rocks: Linux+Command Line Interface
> //\
> V_/_ http://www.calmar.ws
I think you have one space character missing in the second line.
Have a nice day. :)
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Thu Aug 05 2004 - 07:42:38 BST