Re: [ProgSoc] PINE Being Free?

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

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.

Anand

-- 
 `` 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 progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.