From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:31:26 +0000

No, there never was a fork - (iirc) the thread on this was "there is no
fork" - a suitable Matrix pun :)

I fail to see how "PD" can be "GPL compatable", as it (relevantly) does not
require the code to move, which is the core restraint on GPL that offends
_my_ moral stance of "freedom for all."

My code will never reach the "main branch" because (for several reason
which I outlined in a three hour interview with Linus) I use an online
"alias"*. It is now decreed that anybody who even looks at code written by
me is "tainted" and therefore NOT allowed to submit code to Rockbox -
although, since passing this new (by)law, the core devs have both viewed,
used, helped with, included and commented on specific aspects of my code -
so if you're gonna take it seriously, the core dev's are all tainted and
banned from the project - LOL

Even if I had the time and/or patience to fork, my code would still get
infected such that certain people could not use my code.

BC

*I actually agreed to lodge my private details with the core devs if they
agreed not to disclose them (excluding legal suppoena); Bjorn alone refused
this offer ...Even GCHQ would have been okay with that! LOL

>AFAIK, BC, there's nothing stopping you from releasing your code as PD
>as well as GPL, so long as it doesn't derive from any previous GPL'd
>work. Just that since you don't conform to the procedures of the
>project, your code wont find its way into the main branch. Of course
>through the magic of the GPL, you can simply fork it (which IIRC you
>do do :) )
>
>Joe
>
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:10:30 +0100, Anselm Lingnau
><anselm_at_strathspey.org> wrote:
> > BlueChip wrote:
> >
> > > LGPL may well be a wonderful thing - I don't know. The bigger
> question is:
> > > Why is free (as in 'no-strings-attached') bad? In what way does me
> acting
> > > as apostle for Gnu's belief system benefit me, or for that matter, anyone
> > > other than Gnu?
> > >
> > > If I write a bit of code which is useful (primarily and) mainly to
> users of
> > > a bit of software which is GPL - I apparently lose my rights to let
> people
> > > make money with my code. I spend vast proportions of my life doing
> things
> > > which make me happy - why shouldn't chremetists be allowed the same basic
> > > human right?
> >
> > The important thing to note about the »free software« world of which
> the GPL
> > is one of the basic tenets is that it is really mostly about source
> code. In
> > the grand scheme of things, executable code doesn't really matter (as
> long as
> > you have a compiler). It is the source code that you can conveniently study
> > to learn how it works, conveniently fix if it is buggy, and conveniently
> > change to suit your (or your customers') needs. It is the source code
> that is
> > really worth sharing with others if you're serious about »free
> software«, and
> > not a glob of binary gobbledygook that just might run on some machine (or
> > might not). Hence the GPL's insistence on source code as »the preferred
> form
> > for modification« of a program.
> >
> > Thus, publishing »free« (as in beer) executables with no source does
> not cut
> > it from the point of view of the »free software« scene, where people would
> > ideally want source code for every single executable bit on their machines.
> >
> > The GPL tries to ensure that stuff based on GPLed stuff, for which the
> source
> > code is »freely available« according to the GPL, remains available
> subject to
> > the same conditions, which seems fair enough. If you don't want to be bound
> > by the GPL on a ready-made piece of software such as Rockbox, feel free to
> > write your own equivalent code from scratch.
> >
> > > It seems to me that GPL is not much short of a psuedo-political power
> > > struggle which persues the end of imposing upon 'the masses' the
> neccessity
> > > to conform to a single belief system - just like Jesus, Bush, Blair and
> > > many others before them.
> >
> > Nope. Everybody is free to use whatever license they want for *their
> own* code
> > that they wrote themselves from the word go. However, if you borrow
> somebody
> > else's stuff wholesale to write your own code on top of it, that
> somebody is
> > entitled to have a say, one way or the other. This applies to GPL code as
> > well as to code that you get from Microsoft or some other proprietary
> outfit,
> > and chances are that the restrictions on the proprietary code will be even
> > more onerous than the GPL, e.g., you probably won't be able to share
> the code
> > with just anyone.
> >
> > > PS. Just an after-thought: If *I* want to use (portions of) my code,
> which
> > > has been copy-left infected, in a commercial product... do I also
> lose the
> > > rights to what was originally my own "Intellectual Property"?
> >
> > No. If it's yours and useful outside the context of the copylefted
> code, you
> > can release it separately under whatever license you want.
> >
> > In any case the GPL doesn't ever make you »lose the rights to your own
> > intellectual property«. The only thing it might do is keep you from
> > distributing your IP together with somebody else's GPLed IP as part of the
> > same program, but that is something else entirely.
> >
> > Anselm
> > --
> > Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany .....................
> anselm_at_strathspey.org
> > Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad
> example.
> > -- François, Duc de La
> Rochefoucauld
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
> >
>_______________________________________________
>http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2005-01-12