This is the mail archive of the gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GSL project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: re: freedom


Hey Ganglof,

How about responding to the arguments proposed here instead of going on
some copyleft-Commie rant?

Let me get your argument right first: You write software. Since it's
your software, you distribute it under the conditions that suit you
most. That condition is money, very probably in the form of the sale
price of the software you wrote. Right? I hope I'm not getting anything
wrong here.

Let me see if I got the GSL point of view also: They write software.
Since it's their software, they distribute it under the conditions that
suit them best. That condition is that it can only be used in other free
software. Right? I hope I'm not getting anything wrong here.

Should I start complaining about Microsoft not making PowerPoint for
free? Of course not... Microsoft wrote it and therefore Microsoft -- and
only Microsoft -- decides what to do with it, and I'd look like a damn
fool complaining about it.

As for the Copyleft-Communist remark: why, in your opinion, should GSL
be completely "free" (that is, no-strings-attached-free) and not the
software you're writing? What makes your intentions more honorable than
those of the GSL authors? Have you some God-given right to the code you
write that the GSL authors don't have?

I would greatly appreciate if you could elucidate these points...

Cheers
Pedro


On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:48, Gangolf Jobb wrote:
> 
> >I am puzzled here. Why do you need a free library to develop a 
> >comercial software? People of GSL (and other GNU projects) simply say 
> >"we give you this software for free provided anything you make with it 
> >must be also free". Seems like a fair deal to me. 
> 
> hey you copyleft-communist,
> don't you think it is a too simple and stupid view to believe that all 
> software is equal? one must clearly distinguish between software whose 
> development has been financed from public or other peoples money and 
> software that somebody writes on his own risk without being paid. 
> as far as i can see do most people contributig to a numerical library 
> like the gsl work in universities or some kind of governmental
> institution, and all governmental institutions that i know including the 
> universities are explicitly supporting the commercial use of their 
> scientific results. people working there do simply do not have the right 
> to prohibit the commercial use of their work by putting it under the gpl, 
> because commercial use is in the public interest. unfortunately, people 
> deciding about fundings are not generally aware of this and someone should 
> tell them. 
> 
> >As a small contributor to the GSL, I'm very happy that you cannot 
> >link it into your own proprietary software. I don't want to share 
> >with people that do not share. You write a lot about freedom. 
> >Please respect our freedom as GSL developers to not share with 
> >free riders and please stop complaining about our choice. We do not 
> >bother you with your choice to develop proprietary software.
> 
> oh - you don't want to hear about other people's opinion? what kind of 
> discussion is this? as i said above, inserting a gnu-copyleft-notice 
> into originally free software is not enough of a contribution to give one 
> the right to decide about who can use it and who not.
> 
> - gangolf
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]