Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Very disappointed and shocked by the new Yanoff

  • Subject: Re: Very disappointed and shocked by the new Yanoff
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com>
  • Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:37:13 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,comp.sys.palmtops
  • Newsgroups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.sys.palmtops
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / Manchester University
  • References: <42f5d577$1_3@news.bluewin.ch> <dd72gb$afb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk> <1123488374.764992.57910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <ufu0i0z2zg.fsf@brushtail.apana.org.au> <1123560545.782227.9330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dd9miv$g2p$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> <dd9pvh$1hai$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <dd9stg$om0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> <dda8og$45g$1@cauldron.broomstick.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
Arthur Hagen wrote:

> Harold <harold@wolfeden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
>> dd9pvh$1hai$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:dd9pvh$1hai$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> I asked the developer about GPL contradictions in the past and was
>>> pointed to:
>>>
>>> http://www.palmyanoff.com/manual.htm#thedeal
>>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> In that case I think the subject of this thread ought to be changed
>> to "Very disappointed and shocked by the  Free Software Foundation"
>>
>> But I suppose they need the money.
> 
> The information on the web page states:
> 
>   "In exchange for an unconditional license of the single-point-in-time
> fork of the GPL source code, we agreed to pay royalty to the Free
> Software Foundation (FSF) on behalf of Matthias.  In addition we agreed
> to pass along bug reports (and fixes) to Matthias so that anyone
> interested in fixing the GPL release might do so."
> 
> Question is who "we" are.  Does it include FSF, or is it something that
> Messrs Woodcock and van Best decided?  If the latter, it's still
> illegal, as they don't have the right.  I haven't seen anything from FSF
> on this, which would be a natural thing to post on the web site /if/ the
> FSF has granted a termination of the GPL for this application.

I don't know the FSF's regulations too well, but are you suggesting that
there was an agreement to fork a GPL 'mission' into a commercial one?

I know for a fact that 'mushrooming' a commercial[1] extension from a
project that was committed to the GPL is immoral if not illegal at worst.
Imagine yourself publicly-funded or voluntarily-supported projects like
Apache and Firefox going commercial (READ: pricy) after their current
release...

Roy

[1] Where the source is not publicly available hence not shared among the
community.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index