[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ProgSoc] PINE Being Free?
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:31:18PM +1000, Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale wrote:
> At 12:19pm on the 18th of April, jedd wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:50, Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale wrote:
> > ] > the GPL doesnt necessarily fall under "free of charge,
> > ] > non-proprietary, or shareware".
> > ]
> > ] Maybe you have a strange idea about "non-proprietary", but how could GPLed
> > ] software be proprietary? From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html:
> > I remember sitting through several painful months of Tom .. but even if
> > I hadn't, it still seems fairly logical (if not discretely so) to me.
> > There are ors, not ands, as I read it.
> > Not non-proprietary != GPL
> Er. If the GPL doesn't fall under "free of charge", and the GPL doesn't fall
> under "non-proprietary", and the GPL doesn't fall under "shareware", THEN
> the GPL is non non-proprietary, not free of charge, not shareware, or any
> two, or all three.
> We know the GPL allows not free of charge.
> We know the GPL is not shareware.
> Therefore the only point of contest is that the GPL is not non-proprietary.
> I claim that the GPL is always non-proprietary, based on
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. What the hell do you claim? :)
You keep missing that the Pine licence add an additional restriction to every
program that accompanies it. That is worse and breaks the GPL licence.
`` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are having trouble, ask email@example.com for help.