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

From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>, Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>
Cc: dean.mcewan@eudoramail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way.
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:46:39 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10307240239260.16098-100000@master.linux-ide.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <buo8yqo2tel.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>

Yeah the bit about "Nasal Sex with Dead Plants" just makes one wonder, is
a rose just a rose?  (note to self, don't read RMS's diary again)

Has anyone ever asked why it is okay for RMS to suggest it is okay to
invalidate another person/company license (BitKeeper is the example) yet
become offended when their own license is to desired to be invalidated?

Why is it that nothing but gpl can exist with gpl?

Why is that a superior option to license under which follows the
original spirit of GPL but goes further to promote the ideas of open
source is frowned upon?

Maybe it has something to do with self pollenation.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On 24 Jul 2003, Miles Bader wrote:

> "Dean McEwan" <dean.mcewan@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >  After recently reading Mr. Stallman's online *BLURB*
> > at www.stallman.org, specifically the diary entry
> > on June 28th 2003, I am disturbed, I would like to
> > work on helping you people move to a OSL licence,
> 
> Hmmm, if I read that page, I see nothing dated `June 28th' that's
> related to linux, or indeed to software at all.
> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 