Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way.

["Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <lgcdutra@terra.com.br>]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:02:48 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> List:     linux-kernel
> Subject:  Bitkeeper
> From:     Richard Stallman <rms () gnu ! org>
> Date:     2003-07-18 19:51:36

	You didn't need to copy all that, this is well known.  But you
were talking a quite different story, about invalidating licenses and
such.  I fail to see the relation, as the original message from
Stallman was about a proprietary lock-in game threat.


> For those who can not (will not) read, clearly the suggestion for somebody
> to take up the cause to develop a "Bitkeeper" clone.  Know the details of
> the license it was issued to the community to use.

	I can't quite see your point... what's the problem with a
clone?  It certainly isn't immoral or illegal.  An EULA tastes no
better comming from McVoy than coming from Gates.  Cloning of Unix,
BTW, was performed by a young Finnish student some years ago, and now
there's a nasty US company going after people who helped
him... certainly this is proof cloning is bad?


> All know the response and the history of not threats but action by the FSF
> to defend their license and works.

	So what's the problem exactly?


> I am tired of this game.

	Which game?

	BTW, can you answer what's so fantastic about the OSL apart
from allying with ESR instead of RMS?  Are you trying to take sides in
an ego clash, or do you have arguments supporting one or another in a
rational conversation?


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro