[Posted and mailed]
Peter Naulls wrote:
Tarquin Mills <email address snipped by me> wrote:
Paul Vigay wrote:
skok wrote:
That does not say much, does it? Basicly, he has reasons for not updating his software, but he will not say what those reasons are...
So what? It's his software, and his reasons! End of story really!
This a strange view for a free software advocate (JF) to take, as the one of the points of free software is that it is owned by everyone, i.e. the Creative Commons.
No, this is naive in the extreme. In particular, the software under the GPL very much belongs to the copyright holder. Other licences have variations on this.
To quote the Anglia Linux User Group the free software movement is against copyright and the GPL is just an anti-copyright copyright (quinophex). One of the points of the GPL is that the source code is freely available and can be modified and redistributed. Justin Fletcher is not doing this with his software. BTW do not put my email address in usenet postings as this increases spamming.
Peter Naulls wrote:
Tarquin Mills <email address snipped by me> wrote:
This a strange view for a free software advocate (JF) to take, as the one of the points of free software is that it is owned by everyone, i.e. the Creative Commons.
No, this is naive in the extreme. In particular, the software under the GPL very much belongs to the copyright holder. Other licences have variations on this.
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
On 2003-09-01 17:04:39 +0100 Tarquin Mills speccyverse@ntlworld.com wrote:
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
...he's perfectly entitled to try? If you don't want to pay for his time and expertise, you have to either find another supplier or do it yourself. Such is the free market. You may find it worthwhile writing the backend of the gopher client before deciding whether to pay for ncurses.
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:04, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
This is a different matter. You're quite at liberty to charge people for GPLed software. Red Hat and SuSE do it every day. What you must not do, however, is prevent people you've sold it to redistributing it.
My understanding is that the charge that Peter puts on his RISC OS ports is for his time, effort, and technical support. Last time I checked, all the software he'd ported was also available for download from his website (although I do admit it's been a while since I looked, and I seem to have only received half this discussion, so they may be something fundamental in your argument that I'm missing.)
B.
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:04, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
This is a different matter. You're quite at liberty to charge people for GPLed software. Red Hat and SuSE do it every day. What you must not do, however, is prevent people you've sold it to redistributing it.
My understanding is that the charge that Peter puts on his RISC OS ports is for his time, effort, and technical support. Last time I checked, all the software he'd ported was also available for download from his website (although I do admit it's been a while since I looked, and I seem to have only received half this discussion, so they may be something fundamental in your argument that I'm missing.)
B.
Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:04, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
This is a different matter. You're quite at liberty to charge people for GPLed software. Red Hat and SuSE do it every day. What you must not do, however, is prevent people you've sold it to redistributing it.
My understanding is that the charge that Peter puts on his RISC OS ports is for his time, effort, and technical support. Last time I checked, all the software he'd ported was also available for download from his website (although I do admit it's been a while since I looked, and I seem to have only received half this discussion, so they may be something fundamental in your argument that I'm missing.)
I do not want to have anything to do with Peter Naulls, and will not be recommending him to anyone.
In message 1062433683.3455.5.camel@trite Rob Kendrick rjek@pepperfish.net wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:04, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Peter Naulls is also trying to get me to pay 10 pounds for a copy of GNU library NCurses ported to RISC OS, I want to use it to right a gopher browser. This may not be illegal but, ...
This is a different matter. You're quite at liberty to charge people for GPLed software. Red Hat and SuSE do it every day. What you must not do, however, is prevent people you've sold it to redistributing it.
My understanding is that the charge that Peter puts on his RISC OS ports is for his time, effort, and technical support. Last time I checked, all the software he'd ported was also available for download from his website (although I do admit it's been a while since I looked, and I seem to have only received half this discussion, so they may be something fundamental in your argument that I'm missing.)
I do not want to have anything to do with Peter Naulls, and will not be recommending him to anyone.
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:34:35PM +0100, Tarquin Mills wrote:
[Posted and mailed]
Peter Naulls wrote:
Tarquin Mills <email address snipped by me> wrote:
Paul Vigay wrote:
skok wrote:
That does not say much, does it? Basicly, he has reasons for not updating his software, but he will not say what those reasons are...
So what? It's his software, and his reasons! End of story really!
This a strange view for a free software advocate (JF) to take, as the one of the points of free software is that it is owned by everyone, i.e. the Creative Commons.
No, this is naive in the extreme. In particular, the software under the GPL very much belongs to the copyright holder. Other licences have variations on this.
To quote the Anglia Linux User Group the free software movement is against copyright and the GPL is just an anti-copyright copyright (quinophex). One of the points of the GPL is that the source code is freely available and can be modified and redistributed. Justin Fletcher is not doing this with his software. BTW do not put my email address in usenet postings as this increases spamming.
Can I just ask what on earth this conversation is about? It appears that you are having a discussion about some software and the relevant licenses although this is not very clear and which forum, newsgroup, mailing list this is that you are posting in?
I would also like to know the source for your quote from me saying that the free software movement is against copyright and that the GPL is an anti-copyright copyright as I feel it may be a comment taken out of context. This link may be useful also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowIGetCopyright one thing the GPL preserves is someones copyright, just because something is released as GPL does not make it "public domain".
May I also point out that Alug is a group of over 200 people not all of whom will share the same views as me on software copyright and software licenses (or indeed many other subjecty also). There are many different opinions here, if you are going to quote me in other forums then do not associate me with being an official voice of Alug as there is no such thing.
Adam
-
abower＠thebowery.co.uk -
MJ Ray -
Rob Kendrick -
Rob Kendrick -
Tarquin Mills