Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

theoretical licensing problems and such (Announce)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 30.05.2011, 18:28

> In civilized society we try not to insult people unnecessarily.
I wasn't addressing that; as I said, entirely different matter. What I addressed was my right to say something like that. Consequences and all, of course.

(Off-topic: And do you imply I am, or might be, uncivilized? Ha! That could almost be taken as an insult. (I don't actually care.))

> I believe
> in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and not inferring negative
> things unnecessarily.
I got that. I think I explained my wrong impression of what you wrote.

> GPL2 is viral in many of the same ways.
(Off-topic right now. I don't actually care about the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 incompatibilities that much, I was just pointing that out earlier.)

> Once again, I don't consider those conditions to be an obstacle.
I understood that.

> I gave away this code with this license.
Yes. Did I thank you for that already?

> I am not inhibiting anybody from writing their own code.
No one stated you were.

> But as a condition of using this code you have to use my
> same license. I think that is more than fair.
You made your position clear.

> I've also left a provision that people who have a project
> in conflict with current license can contact me to discuss other licenses,
> so there is a safety valve that can be used.
(Yes, but it's inherently tied to contacting you. While that's good-willed, this won't always be possible. That's an entirely different can of worms though. (Read: off-topic.))

> If somebody really can't abide by this license then they are free to
> distribute their code (source or binaries) with a description or script
> that compiles mTCP and links it to their code. As long as they don't
> distribute the resulting binary they are in compliance with any
> version of the GPL. Remember, it is in the distribution of code where the
> GPL gets cumbersome to some people. This loophole is fairly large and
> should satisfy anybody - large corporations like IBM routinely use it.
You are right.

> > Again, "it" is ambiguous. And again if "it" meant just your code I could
> > see myself agreeing with your views a lot more.
>
> See above - you have remedies if you write some code and need a remedy.
Sorry, I like theorizing about remedies for theoretical problems. Be it software programming or software licensing problems.

> I think that being able to see the code, modify it for personal use, and
> use it in the context of other GPL3 code as a very good thing.
That is what I said. Source code under GPL is better than no source code. See, I agree with you.

> You are reacting to the choice of license as though I have restricted you
> from doing something reasonable.
Not at all, you're perceiving this wrongly. I am reacting to the choice of license as though I would have preferred another choice but am still grateful for what you offer now.

> In the absence of any code that you
> actually want to use mTCP with, I'd refrain from worrying about it. Let us
> cross that bridge when we come upon it.
Right, I should do that! I won't bother you about your software's licenses any more unless there's immediate need.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 310 users online (0 registered, 310 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum