Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

["Zhu Qun-Ying" <zhu.qunying@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:35:04 -0700, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
>> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
>
> There's plenty of that going around!
>
>> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
>> work!
>
> Right!
>
>> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
>> of either contributor.
>
> Right again! So, why does something think it's reasonable to suggest that
> you have to open your source because he opened his source? That's going  
> too
> far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to also
> provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touches  
> it is
> wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable.
>

Then don't use it.  If your code deadly need other's code to function,  
then respect their choice of license. You are using your definition of  
freedom to overtake other's thought. I think RMS's GPL is more realistic  
to respect the author's will.  He is not forcing you to use GPL for your  
code, he is not forcing you to use GPL code neither.

>> Respect the wishes of this someone else!
>
> Right. I don't use GPL code because of this.

Good for you then.

>
>> If someone is more generous than GPL etc. would imply, it is
>> their choice. They own the rights. And I think we are not to
>> discuss their generosity, or accuse them of the lack thereof,
>> if so perceived by us!
>
> Right again, but as I said it only goes so far. It's one thing to give
> something away, or share something, but quite another to give a virus
> away. It's dishonest. And calling it "free software" is really quite
> unsupportable.
>

That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable to  
lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software.