From owner-freebsd-chat Tue May 16 14:17:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFEE37B88F for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA90941; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:16:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:16:07 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Rahul Siddharthan Cc: David Schwartz , Anatoly Vorobey , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? In-Reply-To: <20000517023312.B13129@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 17 May 2000, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > It is *already* out there under version 2. Nobody will be *forced* to > reissue it under version 3. If Microsoft did do what you say, it > would be no worse than if they took BSD code and put their own license > on it -- they can't take back the earlier license from people who > already received it. It will not stop people distributing existing > versions, developing them further under GPL 2, and *not* putting GPL 3 > on it. Yes. Of course. But the rhetoric around the GPL is that it means the software is always free, and something like this simply can't happen. Clearly, under the language that stuff gets licensed under, it could. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message