Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[darkestkhan <darkestkhan@gmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:48:58 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:52:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
> <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> >
> > Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume
> > fraudulent entrepreneurship.
> Hu?
> 
> > There is enough evidence that fraud
> > in business is a reasonable assumption.
> 
> The following if under conditions I did not erroneously understood your  
> words. If the opposite, fix me.
> 
> That's the king of assumption (which indeed often come with the GPL  
> culture), which make some people look at this license with amusement.
> 
> Smalltalk: Some business are fraudulent, not all. Further more, the more  
> little your business is, the more you can't be fraudulent. To be  
> fraudulent, you have to be able to keep your customers captive, even if  
> they don't enjoy you; the kind of thing a small business is unlikely to be  
> able to.
> 

define:fraudulent
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
define:fraud
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

So no - you don't "have to be able to keep your customers captive" in order to be fraudulent. Taking someone's else work and saying it is your work is fraud, no matter how small business you are (in fact you don't even have to be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not complying with license is also fraud. 

> > Last but not least, I find it telling that the thread has little
> > to say in favor of licenses that will allow closed source, but that
> > cost money.
> 
> As it happens to froggies from time to time, I could not clearly  
> understand this sentence (cheese and apologizes).
> 

I think he meant licenses that permit inclusion in closed source software if you pay for this. Something like Oracle's doing with OpenOffice - selling it under different license [though in case of OpenOffice it was slightly different - Oracle was the sole proprietor and as such it could change license from GPL].