From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.241.7 with SMTP id we7mr6309583pbc.4.1338648301114; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11510pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: darkestkhan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <19265b67-d516-43b1-91e3-11bd8d97ebfa@googlegroups.com> References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> <4fc9f04f$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.59.74.180 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338648299 30021 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2012 14:44:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:44:59 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.59.74.180; posting-account=nuF4hQoAAADjc2KKS1rOkzxWWEmaDrvx User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-02T07:44:59-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:48:58 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) wrot= e: > Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:52:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus =20 > a =E9crit: > > > > Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume > > fraudulent entrepreneurship. > Hu? >=20 > > There is enough evidence that fraud > > in business is a reasonable assumption. >=20 > The following if under conditions I did not erroneously understood your = =20 > words. If the opposite, fix me. >=20 > That's the king of assumption (which indeed often come with the GPL =20 > culture), which make some people look at this license with amusement. >=20 > Smalltalk: Some business are fraudulent, not all. Further more, the more = =20 > little your business is, the more you can't be fraudulent. To be =20 > fraudulent, you have to be able to keep your customers captive, even if = =20 > they don't enjoy you; the kind of thing a small business is unlikely to b= e =20 > able to. >=20 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 person= al 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 t= o be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not complying wit= h license is also fraud.=20 > > 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. >=20 > As it happens to froggies from time to time, I could not clearly =20 > understand this sentence (cheese and apologizes). >=20 I think he meant licenses that permit inclusion in closed source software i= f you pay for this. Something like Oracle's doing with OpenOffice - selling= it under different license [though in case of OpenOffice it was slightly d= ifferent - Oracle was the sole proprietor and as such it could change licen= se from GPL].