From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jul 2 8:10:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74DB37B405 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97] ident=root) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 15H5Lk-0008Jr-00; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:10:56 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f62FAts19027; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:10:55 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:10:55 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Dirk Myers , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010702161055.A18543@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr>; from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr on Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 06:02:23PM +0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG | But in another sense it is not GNU software, because we can't | use XEmacs in the GNU system: using it would mean paying a | price in terms of our ability to enforce the GPL. Some of the | people who have worked on XEmacs have not provided, and have | not asked other contributors to provide, the legal papers to | help us enforce the GPL. I have managed to get legal papers | for some parts myself, but most of the XEmacs developers have | not helped me get them. | | I think that pretty much explains what *is* and *it not* GNU software. Well, that's a big piece of the puzzle, for me anyway. If the GPL can be removed by the copyright owner, maybe it's not so evil after all. 'Thanks for all your help and contributions, but I'm taking my ball and I'm going home.' Then you could keep two forks, one GPL and public, and one private and proprietay. And then not tell anyone you are sucking all the good stuff into your private version. Not bad. But the FSF doesn't want you to do that. Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message