Subject: FVWM: gnu licence

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:24:13 +0200

Hi all,

well i'm not sure if that belongs to here, yet I removed the GNU
part of my .sig anyway for some time (not that it would
interested anybody :).

http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503

-- 
  calmar
           (o_       It rocks:  Linux + Command Line Interface
          //\
           V_/_                 http://www.calmar.ws         
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:11:51 +0000

> part of my .sig anyway for some time (not that it would

Yes, I guess, what you do in your email signature do not interest
anybody. As well as your attacks on GPL and GNU. Now, if you write
some really good free software, this would be more interesting.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Scott Smedley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:23:40 +1000

> some really good free software, this would be more interesting.

Well said Mikhael!

SCoTT. :)

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:02:12 +0200

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 08:11:51AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> anybody.

of course not, was that the reason I mentioned it?

> As well as your attacks on GPL and GNU.

Well I posted two links. They are meant for informational
purpose. How does it come you see that as an 'attack'? Maybe
those links attack FSF, but I just provide the links as info,
and as a sign that I believe it to some degree, I removed the
GNU part in the sig therefore.

> Now, if you write

of course.

With best Regards,
calmar

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:59:47 +0000

I don't see any constructive reasons to post these anti-GPL links to
the mailing list that is all about the project licensed under GNU GPL.
I can't define it other than a provocation against the fvwm developers.
Unintentional, I suppose.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Scott Smedley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:00:29 +1000

> purpose. How does it come you see that as an 'attack'?

Ok, as your grasp of the English language appears limited, I'll spell out
what should have been obvious from the replies to your initial post:

Please do NOT send grossly off-topic posts to this list. In case it's
not clear, this list is for discussion about the FVWM window-manager -
this is NOT the forum to discuss personal views on GPL/GNU.

SCoTT.

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 03:58:37 +0200

> the mailing list that is all about the project licensed under GNU GPL.

Well Sir,

You didn't read the links really :)

thanks anyway,

calmar, the bad boy

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 04:34:43 +0200

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:00:29AM +1000, Scott Smedley wrote:

> Please do NOT send grossly off-topic posts to this list.

It's not grossly IMO.

> In case it's

Ok, I didn't know the FVWM windows-manager has nothing to do with licences.

Well, I meant something like that *COULD* or could *not* be a good idea (It
could matter or it could not matter. In fact most likely it will not matter,
and even more important, I do ABSOLUTELY not matter what kind of software fvwm
uses, and that was probably a quite errorful ?English? sentence.)

-------------------------------------------------------
Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give
Stallman any possibility to influence your future.  Phrases like

   [...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
   Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
   option) any later version.
-------------------------------------------------------

Well may replace the lesser version with the standard version AND I do
personally *not* care whatever you do with the fvwm-licence!

-------------------------------------------------------
The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation
of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a
monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software
Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
-------------------------------------------------------

No, I do not attack the GNU GPL really.

No, I do *NOT* accect rude things against me, when I only want to 'share' (what
I think) interesting links. Which were especially interesting links for me,
because I had quite a different view before, and I think I was wrong.

And saying it's my fault, that people are rude against me, just because I post
two links, is not acceptable (for me), or let's say I have better to do, therefore

bye bye 

Scotty and Mikhael.

-- 
  calmar
           (o_       It rocks:  Linux+Command Line Interface
          //\

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:58:51 +0200

> > Please do NOT send grossly off-topic posts to this list.

[snip]

> two links, is not acceptable (for me), or let's say I have better to do, therefore

Well, could we please agree that this is all a misunderstanding?

 * Marco wanted to point out a discussion about licensing he
   thought to be of interest.
 * As it turns out, said discussion is very emotional and is
   considered unproductive by some of the developers.  I am not
   offended personally, but I understand why others are.
 * People misinterpreted the intention of the email and replied
   impatiently which Marco thought to be rude.  Nobody wanted to
   be rude, they just wanted to stifle the flaming that they
   believed to follow.
 * Flaming is grossly off topic, but licensing issues are not.  I
   am always interested in such information.
 * Questioning Marco's grasp on the English language to stop a
   mail thread *is* rude.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

 --
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:39:42 +0000

On 05 Aug 2004 04:34:43 +0200, calmar wrote:
[...]

calmar: it seems you take non-personal generic answers personally.
Please don't. It is like to be offended if pointed to FAQ #0.1.

I really hoped to avoid any discussion, because this list does not deal
with the software licenses, but you continue to force these links as
something "interesting", so it seems that some clarification may help.

> Stallman any possibility to influence your future.

In my opinion, this is a paranoid statement that does not match the
predictable behaviour of RMS. Don't forget we all use his definition of
Free Software (four basic freedoms if you remember), because this is the
only widely accepted definition. There is no other man to be as
consistent and persistent regarding Free Software as RMS. I met him in
the real life once, so I may say this. He is a hippie; stating he worries
about his own personal glory and profit (or even better "control of the
world") is nothing but false.

Returning to the GPL or LGPL license tweaking. Developers may use any
license they want, but they should be aware, if they change the canonical
license, the software is no longer freely mixable with all other software
under the canonical license. If you want to be the most helpful to
others, use the canonical license, don't invent your own changes to it,
there is no need to have isolated sets of GPL'd and almost GPL'd software.

> No, I do not attack the GNU GPL really.

You posted a link to the article titled "GPL bad".  Anti-GPL articles
(especially the ones that can't even expand "GPL" acronym correctly) are
not welcome on this list. The topology site is down, but Google has the
cached version.

The same article has multiple attacks on FSF, and even on OSI. I would
say, at least the topology site is a set of anti Free Software articles.
Such attacks on GPL, GNU and FSF are not new. Certain all-known companies
use similar FUD arguments.

> No, I do *NOT* accect rude things against me, when I only want to
> 'share' (what I think) interesting links.

This is a technical list, there are normally no personal (political)
discussions here, this one is a sorry exception.

I think I explained why these links are off-topic and a bit rude to the
fvwm developers that believe in Free Software.

> And saying it's my fault, that people are rude against me, just because
> I post two links, is not acceptable (for me), or let's say I have
> better to do, therefore

You should accept that this is a two edged sword. There are some rules
that define offtopic messages rude, top-posts rude, huge signatures
rude, posting links that may annoy the developers rude and so on.

>            V_/_                 http://www.calmar.ws

I think you have one space character missing in the second line.
Have a nice day. :)

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Ben Winslow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:54:42 -0400

> there is no need to have isolated sets of GPL'd and almost GPL'd software.
FWIW, the "or any later version" bit isn't part of the license itself,
but rather the suggested usage of the license (under the 'How to Apply
These Terms to Your New Programs' section, after the terms and
conditions.)  The Linux kernel, for example, doesn't include the '...any
later version' wording; in fact, it explicitly states this to not be so
(see COPYING in the top of the kernel source tree.)

-- 
Ben Winslow <[email-masked]>

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:18:03 +0000

> (see COPYING in the top of the kernel source tree.)

This is incorrect. Download the license text (GNU GPL version 2), it
includes the canonical wording at lines 299.

As for the kernel, yes, I can't freely mix any code from the kernel to
fvwm since the licenses are almost the same, but not the same. This only
proves my point. Most of the software uses the canonical GPL v2+, so
there is no any problem to mix between fvwm and other such software.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Ben Winslow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:24:24 -0400

> includes the canonical wording at lines 299.
...and the sentence "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" at line 280.

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:12:36 +0200

On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:39:42PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
hi,

> Please don't. It is like to be offended if pointed to FAQ #0.1.

yes, I did take that personally, I'm quite sensible in things like that, and I
think that is good. There are too many freaking rude people around.

[my sig]

> I think you have one space character missing in the second line.

yes, I recognized that and changed it yesterday, thx.

Thanks for the explanation about the licences, yet I can/want not
comment that. I just posted two links, where I still mean, even
they are probably exaggerated, are interesting links.

So let's say in fact I would come up with a big license change suggestion -
what I don't care about in fact and you probably wouldn't either - where
would I have to post that? So let's say it's something really 'serious'. I
can't post into fvwm, nor fvwm-workers?  It seems to be all over off-topic.

cya,
calmar

-- 
  calmar
          (o_  It rocks: LINUX + Command-Line-Interface
          //\

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:25:37 -0400

> can't post into fvwm, nor fvwm-workers?  It seems to be all over off-topic.

I think if you want to submit a patch to the license you should
use fvwm-workers.

Based on the responses you've gotten so far from some of the primary
workers, I don't think you are going to get very far.

Rather than posting links, I think you should describe the problem
it is causing you and the benefits to the fvwm project that would
be gained.

> calmar

Strange, "cya" only means one thing to me...
Oh, ok "see you"?

-- 
Dan Espen                           E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:31:32 +0000

> ...and the sentence "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" at line 280.

Yes, but the actual software is licensed under either canonical GPL v2+,
or under GPL v2-only (more strict), or under GPL plus some additional
permissions (less strict). All these are not compatible in the long run.
This was all discussed on the internet I suppose; if you really want, you
may find the discussions. The summary is, if I copy a code from some
kernel file licensed under GPL v2-only to fvwm.c licensed under the
canonical GPL v2+, the kernel guy has all the rights to sue me.

So, let's stop here. Just like GPL v2 is a fixed version of v1 and noone
uses v1-only now, the v3 may be a fixed version of v2 if some legal
problems are found, in this case no one will use v2 anymore. I would
suggest to use the canonical GPL v2+ (or just GPL for short) for all
new code if you want to avoid any legal problems now or in the future.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:09:25 -0400

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:25:37 -0400

> Strange, "cya" only means one thing to me...

	Ahhh...too many years in corporate America, Dan!

Cheers,
Bob

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 04:42:02 +0200

> On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:39:42PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:

Or maybe someone would be kind enough to say me:

When someone has an issue with the _license that FVWM is using_, where
would he have to mail/post that?

[email-masked] and [email-masked] are not acceptable,
because it's grossly OT there, isn' it.

Cheers,
marco candrian aka calmar

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 11:36:31 +0000

> because it's grossly OT there, isn' it.

Did you read the Dan's reply? It answers this. It's very simple, really.
I am not sure why this unproductive thread should be continued still.

If you are an author, you have a say on your part of the code in case the
license ever changes. No, the fvwm license is not going to change any
time soon, because the developers agree about the current license.

If you see anyone violating the GPL, write to gnu.org and fvwm-workers.
FSF should be informed, so their lawyers help to deal with this, since
the fvwm authors don't have free software lawyers on their own.

If you disagree with the Free Software philosophy and GPL specifically,
don't develop fvwm, noone forces you to. You may still run it freely.

If you want to simply rant about GNU GPL, these lists are not the place.

Here, "you" means "someone", this is a generic, not a personal answer.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: calmar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:58:32 +0200

On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 11:36:31AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:

hi,
> Did you read the Dan's reply? It answers this. It's very simple, really.

in fact I didn't get some mails, at least not all,
I see now in the 'archives'.

So, then it's ok now.

cya
calmar