From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9236 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2006 00:02:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 9072 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2006 00:02:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:02:35 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:02:31 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:02:30 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'oh no not the old gpl virus myth again :-\('" Subject: RE: Rsync over ssh (pulling from Cygwin to Linux) stalls.. Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <009901c6bffe$1a3e0b70$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 On 14 August 2006 20:48, mwoehlke wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> On 14 August 2006 18:41, mwoehlke wrote: >> >>> Dave Korn wrote: >>>> On 14 August 2006 17:04, mwoehlke wrote: >> >>>>> My understanding is that if you place it in Public Domain, then anyone >>>>> can do anything with it and no one can stop this. IOW RedHat would be >>>>> safe because no one can prevent them from using Public Domain material >>>>> in any manner or fashion. >>>> That's not what "safe" means. If the program is in the public domain, >>>> rather than RH having the copyright assigned to them, then anyone could >>>> take it, make a proprietary version and distribute it without the >>>> sources, and RH would not be in a legal position to enforce the GPL on >>>> it because they would not be the copyright holder. >>> And the problem with this would be what, exactly? "Safe" in that no one >>> can take legal action against RH because of their use of it. >> >> No, redhat is "safe" in /that/ sense automatically, because the code is >> GPLd and so they and everyone else in the world can do what they like with >> it, and nobody can stop them. The meaning of "safe" for redhat would be >> "safe from anyone stealing it for proprietary use", because the code would >> not be safe against that unless someone who can afford lawyers - such as >> RH - holds the copyright. > > ...I think this is what Daryl is taking issue with: you are essentially > *forcing* GPL onto someone. Not everyone agrees with that philosophy (in > my case, it depends on my mood :-)). It's not forced onto anyone. There is a fair exchange offered, and it is up to every individual whether or not to take advantage of it. The fair exchange is that, in order to become the beneficiary of millions of person-hours worth of work for the total fiscal cost of precisely $0.00, you are in exchange required to relinquish any rights you may have otherwise reserved to take courses of action that would allow you to attempt to - sorry, but I can't find a better way to express it than a metaphor - enclose the common land, seize a part of the commons for your own personal benefit, take something which is joint property of others and annex it to your own private property. This is an entirely /voluntary/ relinquishment of your rights. It is not *forced* on anyone. If you do not want it, you are free to not make use of the GPL'd software. It's your choice. It is, however, entirely *concordant* with notions of property rights and contract law. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....