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,CP1252 Received: by 10.68.196.232 with SMTP id ip8mr6224816pbc.6.1338645665922; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11396pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.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 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.59.74.180 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338645665 2516 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2012 14:01:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:01:05 +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=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-02T06:59:43-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) wrot= e: > Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright a = =20 > =E9crit: > > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"? >=20 > Well, =93increasing=94 may be misleading as it does not explicitly expres= s an =20 > amount by which. I should have said =93visibly increasing=94 (enough to b= e =20 > visible). I have a web connection at home since about 2005, and at that = =20 > time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was =20 > glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since some = =20 > time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, is a= n =20 > affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] forced t= o release > their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works under= =20 > another license (someone lately noticed a trick implying they now had to = =20 > release their work under GPL). This case made some noise, as this themes = =20 > author made a living from it. So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his work= under GPL. On the other hand I don't see how he can't make living selling = GPL'd themes - after all he isn't required to give them for free nor is he = required to give sources to everyone [in fact he has to give them only to b= uyers]. And don't say that people would be sharing his work with everyone -= after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people sharing = it. > Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan =20 > processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author said i= f =20 > contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be removed= =20 > from Aqsis).=20 So? There is also Apache and OpenOffice... I don't see how is it relevant. [on the other hand you have Altran Praxis and Spark] > There was a story about Perle and a dual licensing said to be =20 > =93the Perle way to undermine the GPL virus=94.=20 > If you search the web for =93GPL =20 > is not free=94, you will get a reasonable amount of results for that exac= t =20 > sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning, =20 > sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and the = =20 > contradiction with what the FSF says leave people with a bad feeling), = =20 > sometime about whither or not the GPL really protects authors theft =20 > (project hijacking and the like), and others. Either this was not their 5= =20 > to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I feel t= o =20 > see more now than before. >=20 Oh, it was - after searching for "gpl is not free" what I get in most searc= h results is mostly from 2003 - 2008 : with many of it from Skype [they bre= ached OpenMoko's license] and SCO [which was saying that GPL is unconstitut= ional]. It is comming back now because Apple is [and Microsoft is trying to] prohib= iting sales of GPL licensed software in Apple Store. > To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose to = =20 > release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is =93this and that=94= , and =20 > is not, which is source of confusion, and confusion leads to =20 > recriminations too. >=20 If they release something about license they misinterpreted it is their sol= e responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then they ca= n relicense.