|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 03:45 PM EST |
The idea that you couldn't use the license without the FSF's permission
effectively (by allowing you submission) is the exact opposite of the idea of
FREE and OPEN. Part of the idea behind the GPL is anyone can see, edit,
redistribute, ect to the code. This would mean only a very small percentage of
people can redistribute the code, which is the way to start another monopoly.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST |
I think such a suggestion is a bad idea.
It certainly adds to the
restrictions:
Non-coders could no longer freely burn a copy of their
favorite Linux Distro and hand out!
Coders who author their own work
and wish to place the GPL protection on it are now required to submit something
to the FSF whether or not they want to!
Meanwhile.... the benefits such a
clause would add above the benefits of the current GPL are....
?????
If
there are no benefits to the clause and only restrictions, why would you want to
add it?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:00 AM EST |
"If you want to become a member of the team then the first thing you should
do is join the samba-technical mailing list and start contributing to the
development of Samba"
Translation: If you want to work with us, then you should actually work with
us.
This is completely different to the lisence used to distribute that work.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Independent coders already work this way. Maybe a better publication system
could be devised to help coders find projects that support their work. It would
also enable the ideas to become public domain, but not the particular
implementations. It would be a way to encourage promising ideas to be explored
and not locked up in half-baked patents -which independent coders could not
afford to file but could protect themselves against.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
