Comments on: Embracing and Extending Open Source from the Inside — Yes, Again http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/comment-page-1/#comment-15309 Roy Schestowitz Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:26:27 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/#comment-15309 I think that if/when Microsoft buys Novell this becomes a issue. Dependence on Novell isn't 'healthy'. The same goes for Mono and downstreaming (Silverlight codecs for example). I think that if/when Microsoft buys Novell this becomes a issue. Dependence on Novell isn’t ‘healthy’. The same goes for Mono and downstreaming (Silverlight codecs for example).

]]> By: anonymous http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/comment-page-1/#comment-15281 anonymous Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:59:54 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/#comment-15281 Just to get things straight. How is that different from, say, Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1997, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ? Does not the legal enforcement of GPL -- just like MIT or any other common open source license -- come directly (and only, one might add?) from the recognition and use of copyright laws? If I would license my code under, say, GPLv3, I am the sole holder for the copyright of that code with such privileges as possibility to change the license in the future. This is also why your or me can not sue anyone for license violations for works not licensed/copyrighted by us. In majority of cases in which a commercial company contributes to an open source project directly in the form of a complete application, the copyright holder is the company or individual representative(s) of it. There is nothing wrong in that -- quite contrary. (And, you know, typically the copyright holder is FSF only in GNU projects, which, unfortunately or fortunately, constitute just a very small minority in the population of open source software. But this goes already towards my original question.) Just to get things straight. How is that different from, say,

Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1997, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

?

Does not the legal enforcement of GPL — just like MIT or any other common open source license — come directly (and only, one might add?) from the recognition and use of copyright laws?

If I would license my code under, say, GPLv3, I am the sole holder for the copyright of that code with such privileges as possibility to change the license in the future. This is also why your or me can not sue anyone for license violations for works not licensed/copyrighted by us. In majority of cases in which a commercial company contributes to an open source project directly in the form of a complete application, the copyright holder is the company or individual representative(s) of it. There is nothing wrong in that — quite contrary.

(And, you know, typically the copyright holder is FSF only in GNU projects, which, unfortunately or fortunately, constitute just a very small minority in the population of open source software. But this goes already towards my original question.)

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/comment-page-1/#comment-15243 Roy Schestowitz Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:35:56 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/#comment-15243 It's the Novell copyrights that raise a brow. See: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/01/novell-dot-net-copyrights/ It’s the Novell copyrights that raise a brow. See:

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/01/novell-dot-net-copyrights/

]]> By: anonymous http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/comment-page-1/#comment-15239 anonymous Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:17:14 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/#comment-15239 Now I do understand the argument of a so-called potential "hidden threat" (in terms of DRM and so forth) when it comes to Mono, but I completely do fail to see the important point (?) in the following: “The Banshee name is a registered trademark of Novell. This does not include Banshee source code, which is licensed under the MIT X11 license.” Are you trying to say that MIT-type licenses are somehow wrong or unacceptable? If so, I am terrified and stop reading your site. Now I do understand the argument of a so-called potential “hidden threat” (in terms of DRM and so forth) when it comes to Mono, but I completely do fail to see the important point (?) in the following:

“The Banshee name is a registered trademark of Novell. This does not include Banshee source code, which is licensed under the MIT X11 license.”

Are you trying to say that MIT-type licenses are somehow wrong or unacceptable? If so, I am terrified and stop reading your site.

]]>