Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

    > In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
    > looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This
    > miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
    > endorsement of a system.

    Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel

That's what I thought.  It _is_ free software, what there is of it.
But it isn't a usable solution.  That's what I meant at the time.

    Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
    media.

"Spread mistruths" is a distorted way to describe a couple of
misunderstandings.  And as far as I know there is no way to forbid
anyone to do that.  If I knew a way, I would do it.

    Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.

Mistakes are not lies.  And these mistakes were misunderstandings
anyway.

      And
    since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
    am going to call you a hypocrite.

I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.
I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers
can judge all aspects for themselves.

[Amarendra Godbole]

On Jan 4, 2008 10:59 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     > In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
>     > looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This
>     > miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
>     > endorsement of a system.
>
>     Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel
>
> That's what I thought.  It _is_ free software, what there is of it.
> But it isn't a usable solution.  That's what I meant at the time.
>
>     Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
>     media.
>
> "Spread mistruths" is a distorted way to describe a couple of
> misunderstandings.  And as far as I know there is no way to forbid
> anyone to do that.  If I knew a way, I would do it.
>
>     Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.
>
> Mistakes are not lies.  And these mistakes were misunderstandings
> anyway.

If a mistake happens once, fine. Second time, fine. Third time,
something is fishy.  Fourth time, the mistake tends towards becoming a
lie. Fifth, sixth, over and over and over and over. It is a lie.

If a leader makes a mistake, people follow suit. Leaders are not
supposed to make mistakes, and if they do, they *must* let go the
leadership position - for they tarnish one and all - the product, the
process, and the people.

And you seem to be sensible enough to understand all that I write
above. And you still insist that you merely make mistakes? RTFM
Richard *before* opening your mouth.

>
>       And
>     since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
>     am going to call you a hypocrite.
>
> I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.
> I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers
> can judge all aspects for themselves.

Well yes, the readers surely can judge - and they do.

-Amarendra

[Theo de Raadt]

>     > In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
>     > looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This
>     > miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
>     > endorsement of a system.
>
>     Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel
>
> That's what I thought.  It _is_ free software, what there is of it.
> But it isn't a usable solution.  That's what I meant at the time.

You spend a lot of time thinking the wrong thing, don't you.

>     Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
>     media.
>
> "Spread mistruths" is a distorted way to describe a couple of
> misunderstandings.  And as far as I know there is no way to forbid
> anyone to do that.  If I knew a way, I would do it.

Oh, forgive me.  Instead, you don't think wrong.  You think
misunderstandings, repeatedly, over and over, repetitively.  Forgive
me for mis-diagnosing the symptoms.

>     Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.
>
> Mistakes are not lies.  And these mistakes were misunderstandings
> anyway.

Three misunderstandings, protested each time instead of apologizing
is a lie.

Ask anyone in law enforcement.

Richard, you are a liar.

>       And
>     since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
>     am going to call you a hypocrite.
>
> I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.
> I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers
> can judge all aspects for themselves.

Oh boy, another lie.  Emacs, gcc, OpenDarwin, and ReactOS.

I understand the general rule -- but Richard is except.

Lying Hypocrite.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
>
>     http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
>
>     Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
>
> Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
> about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.

And ReactOS is next?

I am hoping to spend a few hours in a while auditing the other fringe
projects that the Fringe Software Foundation recommends.

Richard, you are a lying hypocritical irrelevant man.

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 1/3/08, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.
> I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers
> can judge all aspects for themselves.
>
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
apply a label like "not recommended because it supports non-free
software" to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).  You've been asked
repeatedly to address the apparent inconsistencies but I haven't
noticed any candid response from you.  Maybe you can clarify that
logic for us?

Thank you,

gregg

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:00:55PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
> > > from the cc's of your messages.
> >
> > FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
>
> Yet you have no idea whether these people are subscribed to these
> mailing lists.

If they are not, why do their emails get into the mailing list?

Some moderator enjoys letting flames come up? That's even more
interesting...

> > I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.
>
> Isn't it rude to prevent people from receiving answers they are
> seeking? Not everyone not subscribed to this list will end his/her
> messages with a ``please cc: me as I am not subscribed'' notice, because
> they expect people to do the right thing. Which is ``reply to all''.

Their problem.

Rui

--
Frink!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Siju George]

On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove
> from the cc's of your messages.
>

Who knows?
Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense of insanity
from all the misused funds of FSF

Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
others?

===================================================================================================

> That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband,
> which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:
>
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz

How many times do we have to tell you it's NOT proprietary, and It's
not "illegal/prohibbted" to distribute "Zangband".

Go the hell away you troll!

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119766148717919&w=2

-Nix Fan.
====================================================================================================

I used "Perhaps" ok? you spin doctors!!

> If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd.
>
>
> > > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM
> > > To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > > > Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> > > > obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
> > > >
> > > > The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> > > > install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
> > > > commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
> > > > the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
> > > > could find such a pitiful example.
> > >
> > > Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and
> > > remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free
> > > Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be
> > > good, right?
> > >
> >
> > CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE.  One example, IF
> > I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement
> > that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman
> > was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument
> > gets smaller and smaller.  See what happens when you have to prove your
> > argument?  It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package.
> > A game at that.  Not production software, or a web browser, or an email
> > package, a game.  A single game that, from the tone of your argument
> > must be destroying all that free software stands for.  Guess what...
> > I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what
> > your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic
> > components.  You can have the source code...  You can modify the source
> > code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial
> > application.  Sound familiar?  That is almost exactly what I was told
> > by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first
> > introduced to Linux so many years ago.
> >
> > So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce.  It wouldn't
> > bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package.  If I
> > wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually
> > do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or
> > Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so
> > many levels.
> >
> > It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's
> > just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate
> > against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them
> > (us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans
> > view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want
> > to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD
> > project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software
> > but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that
> > your ideals are wrong.  Freedom is all about freedom of choice,
> > If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they
> > are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software.  OpenBSD with ALL
> > the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a
> > much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps
> > as a person could find for it.
> >
> >
> > > Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also
> > > be very much
> > > more productive.
> > >
> >
> > childish-tantrum?  You know, when you resort to attacking the character
> > of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case
> > it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to
> > say.
> >
> > > > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > > > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > > > in it's ports tree.
> > >
> > > He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> > > Software.
> > >
> > > Looking at
> > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2
> > >
> > >... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case.
> > >
> >
> > Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece
> > of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software.
> > Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a
> > free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software.
> >
> > No... wait... I don't get it.  zangband is a GAME.  It could fall off the
> > face of the earth and nobody would blink.  The few people who play it would
> > move on to the next game.
> >
> > I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME
> > is what it is all about.  Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil
> > the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software
> > zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the
> > first case
> >
> > s

[Karl Sjodahl - dunceor-2]

On Jan 4, 2008 9:14 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:00:55PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
> > > > from the cc's of your messages.
> > >
> > > FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
> >
> > Yet you have no idea whether these people are subscribed to these
> > mailing lists.
>
> If they are not, why do their emails get into the mailing list?
>
> Some moderator enjoys letting flames come up? That's even more
> interesting...
>
> > > I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.
> >
> > Isn't it rude to prevent people from receiving answers they are
> > seeking? Not everyone not subscribed to this list will end his/her
> > messages with a ``please cc: me as I am not subscribed'' notice, because
> > they expect people to do the right thing. Which is ``reply to all''.
>
> Their problem.
>
> Rui
>
> --
> Frink!
> Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
>
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
>

This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it.

[Jacob Grydholt Jensen]

On 04/01/2008, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
>
>     http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
>
>     Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
>
> Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
> about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.

While you are on it, please point your wget at
http://dynebolic.org/manual/x198.htm which refers to
http://lab.dyne.org/DyneModules, which suggests people to install
Skype, which I believe is non-free. Note that I use your definition of
the word 'suggest' here.

And more relevant to the discussion, I also find it hypocritical to
describe OpenBSD as suggesting non-free things, while the two GNU
flagships gcc and emacs contain code which sweeten the non-free
Windows experience.

And until all major distributions of Linux can be said to be truly
free by your definition, I would suggest that you stop calling them
GNU/Linux since this could certainly be taken as an endorsement or
even as a suggestion to install them.


                                  Jacob

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:15:08PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove
> > from the cc's of your messages.
>
> Who knows?
> Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense of insanity
> from all the misused funds of FSF

Perhaps you're a paranoid dellusional individual?

> Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
> proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
> others?

Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial
context.

> > That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband,
> > which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz
>
> How many times do we have to tell you it's NOT proprietary, and It's
> not "illegal/prohibbted" to distribute "Zangband".

Yes it is, if you distribute it in a commercial context.

> Go the hell away you troll!

You are the troll.

Rui

--
Hail Eris!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:12PM -0700, L wrote:
> That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco?

Right, his extreme insults are meaningless and unprovocative.

> And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too!
> You are insulting me!

Right, did the hat fit? Because I said "some" not "all" or even "most".

> Anything can be taken as an insult.

Specially insults.

> Did you know that people who speak the truth are insulting at times? People
> that do not put up with bull are very hard people at times?

There's a difference between not putting up with bull and throwing bull
along with insults. That seems to be Marco's favourite writing style.

> Did you know skillful liars are very nice people? Did you know cults drag
> people into their cults by being very nice and calm and positive?

If you mean that only people who are cult-draggers are nice, calm and
positive, then I hate the reality you live in. You've just insulted most
of my friends, should they ever read you.

Rui

--
P'tang!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:03AM +0100, Karl Sjodahl - dunceor wrote:
> This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it.

If one doesn't want to hear what outsiders want to say, then perhaps
posting should be restricted to list members.

Rui

--
This statement is false.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Karl Sjodahl - dunceor-2]

On Jan 4, 2008 10:51 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:03AM +0100, Karl Sjodahl - dunceor wrote:
> > This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it.
>
> If one doesn't want to hear what outsiders want to say, then perhaps
> posting should be restricted to list members.
>
> Rui
>
> --
> This statement is false.
>
> Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
>

Who said anything about that? The discussion was about cc.
You need to keep on subject and don't make up things.

[Craig Skinner]

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >     Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
> >     your big fat lying mouth.
> >
>

> Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.  And
> since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
> am going to call you a hypocrite.
>

I'm going to call him THRUSH, because he is stupid irritating cunt.

[Richard M. Stallman - Autoreply Message]

[This message was generated by an automated system.]

I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay.  I am
located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is concerned,
I appear to be well outside the solar system.

After your message arrives at gnu.org, I will collect it in my next batch of
incoming mail, some time within the following 24 hours.  I will spend much
of the following day reading that batch of mail and will come across your
message at some point.  If I can write a response for it immediately, the
response will go out in the next outgoing batch--typically around 24 hours
after I collected your message, but occasionally sooner or later than that.
As a result, you should expect a minimum delay of between 24 and 48 hours in
seeing any response to your mail to me.

If you are having a conversation with me, please keep in mind that each
message you receive from me is probably a response to the mail you sent 24
to 48 hours earlier, and any subsequent mail you sent has not yet been seen
by me.


If you are in a hurry to speak with me, try sending mail to
<rms-assist@...> saying what you would like to talk with me about,
and giving your telephone number.

Another option to reach me urgently is to call the Free Software Foundation
office at 617-542-5942 and ask them to contact me on your behalf.

If you aren't in an immediate hurry, there is no need to contact
rms-assist@... or the Free Software Foundation office.  I will get
back to you as soon as I possibly can.


If you do not wish to receive this message ever again, please send a message
to rms-autoreply-control@... with the subject "OFF".
Otherwise, you might receive a reply like this one up to once a month.

[David Vasek]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Richard M. Stallman - Autoreply Message wrote:

> [This message was generated by an automated system.]
>
> I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay.  I am
> located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is concerned,
> I appear to be well outside the solar system.
>
> After your message arrives at gnu.org, I will collect it in my next batch of
> incoming mail, some time within the following 24 hours.  I will spend much
> of the following day reading that batch of mail and will come across your
> message at some point.  If I can write a response for it immediately, the
> response will go out in the next outgoing batch--typically around 24 hours
> after I collected your message, but occasionally sooner or later than that.
> As a result, you should expect a minimum delay of between 24 and 48 hours in
> seeing any response to your mail to me.
>
> If you are having a conversation with me, please keep in mind that each
> message you receive from me is probably a response to the mail you sent 24
> to 48 hours earlier, and any subsequent mail you sent has not yet been seen
> by me.
>
>
> If you are in a hurry to speak with me, try sending mail to
> <rms-assist@...> saying what you would like to talk with me about,
> and giving your telephone number.
>
> Another option to reach me urgently is to call the Free Software Foundation
> office at 617-542-5942 and ask them to contact me on your behalf.
>
> If you aren't in an immediate hurry, there is no need to contact
> rms-assist@... or the Free Software Foundation office.  I will get
> back to you as soon as I possibly can.
>
>
> If you do not wish to receive this message ever again, please send a message
> to rms-autoreply-control@... with the subject "OFF".
> Otherwise, you might receive a reply like this one up to once a month.
>

Sounds like he is hiding somewhere in Tora Bora.

Regards,
David

[Siju George]

On Jan 4, 2008 2:52 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:15:08PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove
> > > from the cc's of your messages.
> >
> > Who knows?
> > Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense of insanity
> > from all the misused funds of FSF
>
> Perhaps you're a paranoid dellusional individual?
>

yes I am!
I get a 5-10 minutes break to reality and sanity.
Thats when I wrote it.
And it is evident to every one who has been on this list before how
you behave all the time.

> > Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
> > proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
> > others?
>
> Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial
> context.
>

:-) I don't get you. It is commercial for you?
you???
what does the license say?
has anything in the license of that software been violated?
Oh I understand now.
You are just my opposite.
You are sane most of the time but get Paranoid for a little time at random.
That when you wrote this and felt others are paranoid.
But if you want to impose your own judgment of licenses and your own
interpretation of licences you better start a project of your own and
show the rest of the world an example.

> > > That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband,
> > > which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz
> >
> > How many times do we have to tell you it's NOT proprietary, and It's
> > not "illegal/prohibbted" to distribute "Zangband".
>
> Yes it is, if you distribute it in a commercial context.
>
> > Go the hell away you troll!
>
> You are the troll.
>

:-) that was to the guy who called you a troll right?
I said perhaps you are a paid FSF mercenary or as you accused me
"delusional" :-)

[Sunnz]

2008/1/4, David Vasek <vasek@...>:
>
> Sounds like he is hiding somewhere in Tora Bora.
>
> Regards,
> David
>

Actually I got that message in a private conversation with him as
well, he do reply within 48 hours time frame so I don't think he is
hiding in "Tora Bora".

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Sunnz]

2008/1/4, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...>:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:12PM -0700, L wrote:
> > That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco?
>
> Right, his extreme insults are meaningless and unprovocative.
>
> > And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too!
> > You are insulting me!
>
> Right, did the hat fit? Because I said "some" not "all" or even "most".
>
> > Anything can be taken as an insult.
>
> Specially insults.
>
> > Did you know that people who speak the truth are insulting at times? People
> > that do not put up with bull are very hard people at times?
>
> There's a difference between not putting up with bull and throwing bull
> along with insults. That seems to be Marco's favourite writing style.
>
> > Did you know skillful liars are very nice people? Did you know cults drag
> > people into their cults by being very nice and calm and positive?
>
> If you mean that only people who are cult-draggers are nice, calm and
> positive, then I hate the reality you live in. You've just insulted most
> of my friends, should they ever read you.
>
> Rui
>
> --
> P'tang!
> Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
>

Oh, got to add the cc back btw...

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>    You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
>    period!
>
> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
> including distributing the code under other licenses.

I don't think so. The recipient of BSDL'd material gets a copyright
license from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a
chance to do anything at all regarding granting some or all of the
copyright rights that middleman received as a licensee. The middleman
may or may not grant rights to his modifications though.

> The only requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.

And that means what? Well, you might want to wget and check out

http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_070112lowres.pdf

"What is the legal effect of being required to retain "this list of
conditions". Are they just there for show? Do they have some other
effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective
meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the
original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of
the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant)
is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the
reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is
called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the
words.9

Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to
"retain" a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a
court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be
effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but
framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no
legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the
license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty
disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar
argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements).

On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the
distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The
question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause
2 which permits "redistribution and use" of the source form? If, in
the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the
requirement to "retain" or "reproduce" the warranty disclaimer is that
the warranty disclaimer cannot, by the manner of its retention, be
limited in its application or scope. Why should the same reasoning not
apply to the terms in the "list of conditions"? Moreover, if the
disclaimer and endorsement prohibition are operative as conditions,
what basis can there be for arguing that the other clauses are not?

If the other license terms are operative, then the combined effect of
clauses 2 and 3 is that redistribution of the source form must occur
on the terms of the NBSDL."

>
> Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.
>
> The concept of relicensing...

I don't think that "relicensing" is legally a well defined term.

You must mean the concept of sublicensing, I suppose.

(The act of sublicensing is what happens when a licensee becomes a
licensor to some other party by granting some or all of the rights
that they received as a licensee.)

The "problem" is that nonexclusive copyright licenses are generally
indivisible as a matter of law (this is referred to as "settled law"
in every source you can find) unless the licensing contract states
otherwise. This means that a nonexclusive license does not carry an
implicit sublicense agreement. With the exception of the MIT License
(which contains a sublicense clause), permissive licenses generally do
not include a sublicense right and instead offer a direct grant of
rights from the original licensor to any recipient of source code
released by him or her under that license.

Actually, according to the 9th Circuit, exclusive licensees are not
transferrable or sublicenseable either unless otherwise stated. See
Gardner v. Nike, a case which appears to have surprised a lot of
lawyers at the time:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/pubs/annrev/exmplrs/csum/gardnervcsum.pdf

I also note that you seem to insist on tying the concept of
"relicensing" to the concept of GPL "compatibility":

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html

"The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which
are compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released
under one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively,
permission to relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can
happen. Some licences explicitly say "you can also use this program
under the GNU GPL". In other cases, it's because the licence is so
permissive that to relicence it under the GNU GPL is permitted."

This doesn't seem to be a smart idea on your part because it makes
BSDL-like permissive licensed code without sublicense grant totally
GPL incompatible!

regards,
alexander.