From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 05:45:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F85A16A4CE for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:45:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41F043D49 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:45:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) iA25jGv00604 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:45:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:45:16 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:45:17 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Knowles [mailto:brad@stop.mail-abuse.org] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:32 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: chat@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence > > > At 3:05 PM -0800 2004-10-31, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > And as I've already told you, there is no guarentee that anything > > posted long long ago has any relevance to today. > > Has the GPL changed since then? Has the BSD license changed > since then? Have the laws changed since then? > Whether they have changed isn't relevant. What is, is the interpretation of them. The interpretation of the laws and licenses is always in flux. Certainly, GPL is a central point of the SCO lawsuit, which has not been resolved. If you were to get sued, to defend yourself your lawyer would be reviewing past court rulings to assist in building a defense. He would not just walk in to the courtroom and say "my client is safe because the license and the law says this" unless he were not very smart. Instead he's going to cite all prior rulings that could be interpreted to support your case, with emphasis on recent rulings. > If none of these things have changed, then I don't see how they > would be any less relevant today than they were at the time they were > originally said. > Because our understanding of anything - even so-called facts - is always contextual. I say the speed of light is so-and-so many miles per second - well, I'm right, right? No. It depends on how strong any gravitational fields happen to be that are near what I'm observing. In short, contextual understanding. Laws are very, very contextual. I might ask, has the US Constitution and Article 1 changed at all since they were written? Don't you think the DMCA modified our interpretation of Article 1 - just a few years ago? The world is only full of absolutes to religious fanatics talking about their preferred diety and what that diety says is true. > > Moreover, if you want to dredge up this old flame war, Why particularly do YOU regard this as a flame war? Do you have some personal vested interest in the GPL and you feel like your being personally flamed that people are pulling it's pants down again? Have I blundered into a Linux mailing list by chance? > > > > If you want the thread dead, don't keep it alive by continuing to add > > to it. > > Let me be the second person to request that you let this thread > die yet once again. > And let me repeat that if you want it to die, stop posting. Ted