1 |
tvali, |
2 |
|
3 |
This does not have anything to do with portage development. While I |
4 |
appreciate your concerns and ideas I must ask you to stop abusing this |
5 |
mailinglist. Things like this off-topic email and the thread where you |
6 |
replied four times to yourself are not good form and should be avoided |
7 |
(unless you really want us to unsubscribe you from this list) |
8 |
|
9 |
Please try to keep your mails on topic and as concise as possible. |
10 |
|
11 |
Thanks, |
12 |
Patrick |
13 |
|
14 |
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 00:34 +0300, tvali wrote: |
15 |
> (portage list is maybe the best place to send this, but still, maybe |
16 |
> usable as i dont know lists with such specific purpose -- so sending |
17 |
> it to gentoo list and gnu) |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I have thought about such things: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> 1. Formats like mp3 are put together in such way that basically noone |
22 |
> can use them with a free application. There should be licence, which |
23 |
> grants some file formats an opposite -- that no application, which |
24 |
> supports any commercial file format, must not support them. Then |
25 |
> people who want, may put all their free music up in that format -- or |
26 |
> even licence their music in such way that it's only free as long as it |
27 |
> is used together with it. Goal of such licence would be to give gnu |
28 |
> people the same ways to take their market position, as corporations do |
29 |
> -- this may not seem "nice" to those corporations, but it targets the |
30 |
> problem, i think. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> 1a. Licence, which protects a format against being used in any app, |
33 |
> which supports any poorly documented format like MS word document and |
34 |
> by any product by any company, which owns any such format. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> 2. In many countries there are software patents. I think that there |
37 |
> should be licence against them similar to previous licence -- so that |
38 |
> i may patent my free software in such way that any company, which uses |
39 |
> any commercial patent in it's production, must not use that software |
40 |
> [or, as alternative licence, must pay for it to gnu, licence owner or |
41 |
> anyone that patenter sees as deserving it]. So, not "if used in |
42 |
> commercial products", but "if used by commercial company". Patents may |
43 |
> be also used in different ways -- for example, there may be long list |
44 |
> of things a company *must not do* or *must not be*, if they want to |
45 |
> use the patent. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> I think that there are several kinds of people using gnu licences: |
48 |
> * Those, who actually fight against certain types of licences, |
49 |
> corporative policies etc. and want to protect their work against to be |
50 |
> used in any such project -- maybe even in marketing campain of a |
51 |
> corporation, who is "supporting free software" by taking it's code |
52 |
> into use or just supporting it, like IBM with Red Hat. Those people |
53 |
> may, therefore, even want it to be not given away freely with $40 CD |
54 |
> and book. |
55 |
> * Those, who just dont want their code to be used with any direct |
56 |
> commercial purpose and want it to be open, but dont go too far in |
57 |
> philosophy and let their programming language, for example, be used in |
58 |
> making commercial product. |
59 |
> * Those, who want their code to be free and open and any development |
60 |
> to be free and open, but may say something like "wow our soft is used |
61 |
> even in commercial products". |
62 |
> * Those, who just give it for free to students and schools, for |
63 |
> example. |
64 |
> * Those nasty people who make those "free lite versions", which almost |
65 |
> work and spam all search engines ;) |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Ok, my additions here are -- gnu should think more about those people, |
68 |
> who are actually wanting their code to be propagated only by |
69 |
> freeware-makers and run only in environments, which contain no |
70 |
> commercial products and are not used for any commercial purposes. Ok, |
71 |
> they still contain commercial hardware and people may write their |
72 |
> commercial e-mails in them, but anyway, to have a music format, which |
73 |
> licence does it's best to make it so that you have to *choose between |
74 |
> mp3 and mpfree*, not choose between having both or only free one, |
75 |
> would be good. Freeware builders should have at least one "market", |
76 |
> which uses all nasty microsoft-intel trusted corporate policies to |
77 |
> protect itself against everyone other who use them ;) Such |
78 |
> "corporation" could be nice macintosh to other free products, which |
79 |
> are not so radical in their way (ok, what we would eat, when going too |
80 |
> radical, but still -- Microsoft actually *fights* openoffice, so what |
81 |
> having alternative openoffice format, which is, for example, illegal |
82 |
> to be used on commercial OS or, alternatively, illegal to be used in |
83 |
> any application supporting word doc's). |
84 |
> |
85 |
> -- |
86 |
> tvali |
87 |
> |
88 |
> http://www.friesian.com/types.htm |
89 |
-- |
90 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |