1 May
2008
1 May
'08
11:29 p.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
bradley newton haug wrote:
Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject.
Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within
GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots
of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my
understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems
to say and that's all I work on.
I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed
on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been
one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I
put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug
pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't
protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't
listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I
continued working on the project because the developers didn't even
announce they'd made the change.
I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this
subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were
that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about
them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really
'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use
a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and
modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you
don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of
feeding code back into the program falls apart/)
Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert'
anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and
decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's
their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last
few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide
it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I
*think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing
more.
Cheers,
Mark
attempting to subvert the intentions of the
authors (who are present
on this list) is deplorable.
He isn't subverting anything. Open source code
licensed under the GPL
guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of
you see fit.
The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it
address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do
what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter
of its license, as are we all.
You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has
anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It
seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.
Best,
dp