BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
ps at leissner.se
Sat Feb 16 14:22:05 CST 2002
> At 10:47 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> >> If users are fully informed about what a Trojan horse REALLY does,
> >> they may think twice about "running" it.
> >Obviously everybody should be carefully before using a tool
> >and study and understand for yourself what it really does
> >an not rely on what other people say about it.
> >But that doesn't mean that the tool inherits any
> >"evil" purpose that the creator of it had in the
> >process of creation.
> I disagree. A Trojan horse that, for example, trashes hard
> disks or creates zombies for DoS attacks is fundamentally
> bad. This is why it's called "malware."
Compare the trojan to a weapon. It is the person that
uses the weapon that does something illegal (or evil),
regardless of whether the weaponed manufacturer had
"evil intent. However regardless of whether the user
or the manufacturer or both had "evil" intent the
weapon is not "evil".
A trojan for example might be used to make havoc
in the enemys computer system. This is an act of
war and is neither illegal nor "evil".
> >I think the difference is that I don't consider Stallmans
> >agenda unethical, only unrealistic.
> >Forcing people to releasing small bug fixes is one thing
> It's a start down a slippery slope -- toward appropriating
> any or all of their code at will.
Well, if you are worried about the license of the C library
that close to all Linux application links, you don't have
to use it.
I think it is entirely reasonable if a find a bug in the C
library and fix it that I publish the fix as thanks for
having privilage of using it for free.
> >Yes, because the motor ways that can transport troups
> >can also transport trade goods or people visiting
> >other countries in friendship. The more trade the
> >more interdepence and the less risk for war.
> Ah, but the government's terms won't let commercial
> vehicles on the road.
And why should they do that?
And what is the analogy with either Nazi Germany or the GPL.
> >> Yes, it can. You can forfeit your fair use rights via
> >> a contract. And the FSF licenses are profferred contracts.
> >That remains to be decided in court.
> Actually, no. Fair use rights can be signed away.
> Non-disclosure agreements, for example, prevent people
> from doing things that might otherwise be allowed
> as fair use.
Yes, but that have nothing to do with copyright
or fair use for that matter.
If you get hold of some work in trust you must
of course keep that trust, but this have nothing
to do with copyright at all.
But claiming that some freely available work that
I happend to download from site on the Internet
that have a file with a license contains some obscure
paragraph means that I have been entrusted that work
is quite absurd and only in the US would a court even
consider such absurd charges.
Same if I would have bought the work in a shop.
> >> >I don't think they will have much luck though,
> >> >they have already tried to stretch the boundaries
> >> >of copyright law with the GPL,
> >> This is another reason why the GPL is likely to be
> >> ruled invalid. An attempt to use copyright law to
> >> do anything beyond the purposes stated in the US
> >> Constitution can be invalidated as "copyright abuse."
> >> (This argument has been made in the Napster litigation
> >> and Judge Patel has taken it quite seriously.) Certainly,
> >> "turning copyright on its head" (these are Stallman's own
> >> words for what a "copyleft" license does) would qualify
> >> as copyright abuse. Hence, all "copyleft" licenses are
> >> probably invalid and unenforceable.
> >I think saying that the GPL is copyright abuse it taking
> >it little far.
> Not at all. Read the case law. Type "copyright abuse" into
> any search engine.
I'm not particulary intrested. If you wish to invalidate the
GPL fine, for me it is enough that Wine doesn't choose LGPL.
More information about the wine-devel