Re: [ba-ohs-talk] More bad news about the GPL License: Fwd: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts
> "Closed source" being the contrary of "open source",
> that and "ethics"
> do not go together.
I mean the ethics of non-free software and the abuse
of our freedom. (01)
> GCC is the work of the Free Software Movement, but
> by discussing it
> under the rubric of "open source" you would tend to
> lead people to
> misattribute it to the other movement. Please don't
> do that. (02)
My mistake, I should have known.
Non-Free, propritary and closed-source seem to be the
same but have different connotations. (03)
"Open source" tools like the ATT graphvis
are not free becuase they force you to register each
patch with them and all Intelletual property rights
for any changes. (04)
"You grant to AT&T under any IPR owned or licensable
by you which in any way relates to your Patches, a
non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid-up,
unrestricted, irrevocable license, along with the
right to sublicense others, to (a) make, have made,
use, offer to sell, sell and import any products,
services or any combination of products or services,
and (b) reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative
works based on, perform, display and transmit your
Patches in any media whether now known or in the
future developed. " (05)
James Michael DuPont (07)
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more