Dude, instructions for unsubscribing are right there in the mail you're replying to. Follow them. On 8 January 2015 18:04:32 GMT+00:00, John Elicker <jwelicker@gmail.com> wrote:
Please unsubscribe
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:00 AM, <cypherpunks-request@cpunks.org> wrote:
Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to cypherpunks@cpunks.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to cypherpunks-request@cpunks.org
You can reach the person managing the list at cypherpunks-owner@cpunks.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) 2. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (Cathal (Phone))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:26:15 -0500 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2_= de+t7C3swNoJW9jx8kGJu9P2M_1bhauZ9P3xHvf30Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:
The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of
work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't
Probably because their model and vision is different, they're not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little interest in legal longtexts or lawyers.
terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection
Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, which grants patents.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased.
BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice itself.
boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological or rule-based morals on the BSD side.
Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD
seem define that differently.
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:40:37 +0000 From: "Cathal (Phone)" <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>, cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] Message-ID: <249E482B-33E1-4653-B035-8D06B083F6AB@cathalgarvey.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I don't think it's unfortunate, I think it's complementary. GPL is valuable for trailblazing and stamping.out new territory because it prevents E3, BSD is valuable because it helps shitty tech companies migrate to standards that aren't total snakeoil. Between the two, the world improves. Obviously I think GPL is better and more important, but
doesn't mean I disparage or undervalue other open work.
On 8 January 2015 09:26:15 GMT+00:00, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:
The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote: the
work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't
Probably because their model and vision is different, they're not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little interest in legal longtexts or lawyers.
terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection
Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, which grants patents.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased.
BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice itself.
boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological or rule-based morals on the BSD side.
Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD
the people that people
seem define that differently.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.