Copyright, derivative works, and truly free licensing (Was: Wine license change)

[David Elliott]

On 2002.02.13 01:08 Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:06 AM 2/11/2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> >I'm sure the FSF would be a nasty litigant, if you refused to settle
> >after infringing the copyright of any of their source code.  Since the
> FSF
> >doesn't hold the copyright on any of the code in Wine, however, that
> >objection isn't particularly relevant to the present case.
> 
> Yes, it is. The FSF also encourages OTHER litigants to be nasty, both
> via the propaganda in its licenses and by offering to bankroll them
> and give them free legal services. In short, the FSF hopes to turn
> programmers against their colleagues with the goal of destroying the
> industry.
> 
Once again Brett, you have stated the obvious.  The FSFs stated goal, I 
believe, is to make all software "Free Software" and rid the world of the 
practice of treating software as intellectual property.  This is not the 
goal of everyone who wishes to use the LGPL license for their software.  
In fact, I think the majority of people who use an FSF license don't buy 
into all of the rhetoric from the FSF.

If Wine went LGPL and a developer wished to enforce the LGPL license I'm 
sure the FSF would be more than happy to help.  And you are probably right 
that they would encourage it.  But the bottom line is that it's still in 
the copyright holders' hands.  Your notion that the Wine developers are 
the FSFs sheep is absolutely appalling.

I for one, and I think everyone else on this list as well, have had enough 
of this blatant anti-FSF rhetoric of yours.  I think everyone has gotten 
the point by now and by continuing your argument you are only serving to 
further distance yourself from the Wine developers.  Nobody likes a 
troll.  If you have something else to say other than Wine must stay with 
the X11 license because only then is it truly free software and the FSF 
must die, then please do so.  If not, then please shut up.

-Dave