From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 18 10:35:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mcqueen.wolfsburg.de (pns.wobline.de [212.68.68.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269CF37B428 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from colt.ncptiddische.net (ppp-166.wobline.de [212.68.69.174]) by mcqueen.wolfsburg.de (8.11.3/8.11.3/tw-20010821) with ESMTP id fBIIZ7727690; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:35:07 +0100 Received: from tisys.org (jodie.ncptiddische.net [192.168.0.2]) by colt.ncptiddische.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBIIagX23484; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:36:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nils@tisys.org) Received: (from nils@localhost) by tisys.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBIIZjn23783; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:35:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nils) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:35:10 +0100 From: Nils Holland To: Brett Glass Cc: Jeremy Karlson , Craig Harding , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <20011218193510.A23697@tisys.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217222907.028403b0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 10:14:06AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD jodie.ncptiddische.net 4.4-STABLE FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE X-Machine-Uptime: 7:21PM up 9:47, 1 user, load averages: 0.22, 0.08, 0.02 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 10:14:06AM -0700, Brett Glass stood up and spoke: > > The parts that will take the longest to reimplement properly -- it will > be a multi-year effort to remove them -- are the toolchain. FreeBSD should > never have become dependent upon the GNU tools, because the FSF owns them > lock, stock and barrel. The FSF can, at any time, restrict the use or > distribution of these tools. (I believe that it is Richard Stallman's plan > to wait until GCC wipes out most or all commercial C compilers and then > require that all output of the compiler be licensed under the GPL. He > cannot pull this "bait and switch" just yet, but in a few years he will > be able to. If he does, the projects most at risk are the BSDs. (Bruce > Perens has already stated that he wants "Version 3" of the GPL to limit > the use of the output of GPLed programs. It's just a matter of waiting > until the community's head is fully inserted into the noose.) We must begin > planning now for this development, to which the FSF's agenda and > Stallman's malice against commercial developers (or anything -- including > the BSDs -- that offers them aid and comfort) will inevitably and > inexorably lead. May I ask, just out of interest, how it comes that you have *such a strong* dislike against the FSF, GPL and RMS that you portray them as the ultimate devils? As I have already said, I'm not the biggest fan of the GPL either, and the licensing discussion certainly is of at least some importance, but I would like to understand your reasons for actually coming up with such *diabolic* theories. Furthermore, I don't currently see a legally or real-world enforcible way to restirct the output of GPLed software. If I only use some GPLed software in order to write something down and then print it, I don't think that a license can force my output to fall under the same license. As such, I guess that if I wrote myself a C program and compiled it, I don't believe that any license would serious (legally) be able to require that my output also falls under the GPL automatically. These are, I think, some weird theories - at least I have not seen any signs of them being true so far. Greetings Nils -- Nils Holland Ti Systems - FreeBSD in Tiddische, Germany http://www.tisys.org * nils@tisys.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message