28 Jan
2008
28 Jan
'08
6:42 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:09 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave
Robillard wrote:
So we'd be better off with no definition of "open source" or "free
software" at all?
Obviously not. This has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "you are
not a true...". Accepted and widely understood licensing blanket terms
are useful (i.e. actually, truly, useful, in the most pragmatic sense
possible). Attacking them and/or misleading people about them does
nothing but harm.
Especially when it's a weak variation of pulling a Godwin ;)
-DR-
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons
Adriaensen wrote:
No, it reminds me because of the wording. I guess I've grown to
be allergic to any statements of the form
"You are not a true Communist/Christian/Moslim/American/..." On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben
Stien wrote:
Because you're trolling? :) But that's really the funny thing here. Your
software isn't from the
free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither
the free software definition nor the open source definition.
I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this issue, cause if you state that the
software is under GPLv3 you may not impose any further restrictions on
the work, if I read the license correctly.
Dio mio. Why does this remind me of Revolutionary Guards
rhetoric from the Cultural Revolution era (People's
Republic of China, mid 1960s) ?