From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jul 2 18:43:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FE7B37B40A for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:43:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tms2@mail.ptd.net) Received: (qmail 19714 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 01:43:42 -0000 Received: from mail1.ha-net.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([207.44.96.65]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Jul 2001 01:43:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 29063 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 01:43:41 -0000 Received: from du207.cli.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([204.186.33.207]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Jul 2001 01:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <3B412280.ED210541@mail.ptd.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:40:16 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" Organization: None X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > So what you are saying, then, is that 'Free Software' in the FSF definition > > is not just GPL'ed, but also has the copyright signed over to the FSF so > > they can 'insure' that the code will remain forever GPL'ed? If so, that is > > damn scary. > > Yup. Thats the idea. See what Stallman has said for XEmacs > [ quote taken from XEmacs site, URL: > http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html ] > > The FSF Point of View > > Richard Stallman writes: > > XEmacs is GNU software because it's a modified version of a > GNU program. And it is GNU software because the FSF is the > copyright holder for most of it, and therefore the legal > responsibility for protecting its free status falls on us > whether we want it or not. This is why the term "GNU XEmacs" > is legitimate. > There seems to be a hidden clause in the GPL, that requires anyone who incorporates any GNU code in their program, or uses any GNU code to build their program, or ships any GNU code with their program, to call their program "GNU ". How long before Stallman starts talking about "GNU FreeBSD"? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message