ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   16 May 2002  22:36:53
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0516/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [2]Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]Development
     [7]Commerce
     [8]Linux in the news
     [9]Announcements
     Letters
    [10]All in one big page
 
    See also: [11]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [12]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    May 16, 2002
 From:    Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Re: Subsidizing the development of non-free software
 Date:    Tue, 14 May 2002 14:15:10 -0700
 
 dm@chrononaut.org (David Moles) writes:
 
 > Let me put the question another way: Is it acceptable for private
 > interests to take free software developed with the public's money
 > and make it into software that is not available to the public?
 
 If it's licensed under the GPL, then the answer is *yes*!  I am free
 to take GPL's software, make enhancements and sell it.  Can you get a
 copy if you want one?  Only if you pay my exorbitant fee (the GPL
 doesn't require me to distribute to just anyone who asks).  Bonus for
 me if I sell binary-only with the written offer for sources and the
 three years (the minimum) that the GPL requires me to make them
 available passes without anyone taking me up on that offer!
 Essentially, I will have taken GPL'd code and made proprietary
 enhancements for which I won't have had to distribute the source (and
 it's not entirely clear to me whether the GPL forbids the binary-only
 recipients from further redistribution if they don't have the source,
 but I would think so).
 
 Stallman writes in his GNU Manifesto:
 
 "GNU is not in the public domain.  Everyone will be permitted to
 modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to
 restrict its further redistribution.  That is to say, proprietary
 modifications will not be allowed.  I want to make sure that all
 versions of GNU remain free."
 
 However, Stallman's aims in his Manifesto don't seem to be embodied in
 the GPL.  "Free Software" seems to require altruism and vigilance in
 order to succeed thus far and the GPL only requires that, if you can
 manage to get your hands on some GPL'd software, then you can get the
 sources if you want them, and it seems to allow non-public
 enhancements to be created.
 
 --
 Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>      Phone: (760) 499-9142
 President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084  4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
 From:    Bernhard Bablok <mail@bablokb.de>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: TCO
 Date:    Fri, 10 May 2002 10:34:51 +0200
 
 Hi,
 
 one additional point to the TCO discussion. Microsoft with its release policy
 forces companies to upgrade to XP: without support for NT, companies will
 have to migrate solely because you cannot buy computers running NT anymore
 (NT does not support USB, and PS/2 and serial ports tend to be removed).
 
 A migration of 20000+ PCs will take more than a year and costs quite a lot.
 Now consider that support for XP will stop 06/2004. So every two years your
 will spend money and time migrating the OS and the applications - or you will
 have to support numerous OS-versions and applications.
 
 This aspect of TCO is seldom taken into account. Of course, migrating to Linux
 will have a one-time cost-effect. But that's it.
 
 A number of large companies and governmental organizations in Germany are
 already thinking about migrating to Linux because of these issues. Others
 will stick to XP, only because of all their Windows-based applications. But
 they will have to think about the whole issue again in 2004 (and in 2007...).
 One day, they will migrate to Linux, just because the migration-costs will
 kill them.
 
 Bernhard
 From:    Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
 To:      rms@gnu.org, bkuhn@fsf.org
 Subject: seeking FDL 1.2 draft comment summary
 Date:    Wed, 15 May 2002 16:56:51 -0500
 Cc:      fdl-comments@fsf.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, lwn@lwn.net
 
 Gentlemen,
 
 At <[13]http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html>, the following text can be
 found:
 
 "On 7 February 2002, the FSF released a draft of the GNU Free
 Documentation License, Version 1.2 for comment. The comment period lasts
 for three weeks, until 1 March 2002. If you have comments on this draft,
 please direct them to <fdl-comments@fsf.org> by 1 March 2002.
 
 "The FSF always seeks input from the community at large before adopting
 a new version of our Free licenses. We consider all feedback carefully;
 however we may not be able to respond to each comment individually. At
 the end of the comment period, we will post a summary of the most common
 comments."
 
 The comment period concluded a two-and-a-half months ago, and still
 there is no sign of any public posting of comments received by the FSF,
 or any summary thereof.  I think this lag stretches the meaning of "at
 the end of the comment period".
 
 Several Debian Developers participated in your comment process and we
 are extremely interested in what perspectives may have been raised by
 other parties.  We are also interested in the FSF's position on the
 feedback it received, and whether and how the feedback has influenced
 the forthcoming revision of the GNU FDL.
 
 I sent a message regarding this very subject on 1 April[1], and received
 absolutely no reply of any sort from anyone affiliated with FSF[2].
 
 Please acknowledge your receipt of this message, and advise as to the
 current disposition of the GNU FDL revision process.  The current
 version of the GNU FDL can be applied in ways that a substantial number
 of Debian developers regard as non-free[3], and more to the point some GNU
 Manuals will be impacted by our assessment of the license.  If a new
 version of the GNU FDL is not forthcoming from the Free Software
 Foundation, then Debian will need to make its evaluations based on the
 current version; we cannot table these issues indefinitely.
 
 Thank you for your attention, and for your encouragement of community
 participation when making strategic decisions about future versions of
 the licenses you endorse.
 
 [1] [14]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00002.
 html
 
 [2] Clarification: I did receive a private reply from a person
 affiliated with the FSF, but who attested that he had nothing to do with
 the development of the FDL, and appears to be as much of an outsider to
 the process as Debian is.  I received no reply from Richard M. Stallman,
 Bradley Kuhn, Eben Moglen, or anyone purporting to speak for any person
 of leadership in the FSF.
 
 [3] The GNU FDL and the issues it was designed to address sparked
 massive discussions within Debian; there is clearly a demand for a
 copyleft that deals with materials that aren't obviously software.
 References to the "root nodes" of several discussion threads follow.
 
 [15]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00096.html
 [16]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00126.html
 [17]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00000.html
 [18]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html
 [19]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html
 [20]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00094.html
 [21]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00100.html
 [22]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00001.html
 [23]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00007.html
 [24]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00010.html
 [25]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00052.html
 [26]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html
 [27]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00276.html
 [28]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00336.html
 [29]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00358.html
 [30]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00361.html
 [31]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00394.html
 [32]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html
 [33]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00250.html
 [34]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00114.html
 [35]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00009.html
 [36]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00054.html
 [37]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00104.html
 
 Also, several threads contained direct commentary on the FDL 1.2 draft:
 
 [38]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00046.html
 [39]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html
 [40]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html
 
 --
 G. Branden Robinson                |     If you have the slightest bit of
 Debian GNU/Linux                   |     intellectual integrity you cannot
 branden@debian.org                 |     support the government.
 [41]http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- anonymous
    [42]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [43]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/devel.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/commerce.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/press.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/announce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0516/bigpage.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0509/letters.php3
   12. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   13. http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html
   14.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00002.html
   15.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00096.html
   16.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00126.html
   17.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00000.html
   18.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html
   19.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html
   20.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00094.html
   21.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00100.html
   22.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00001.html
   23.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00007.html
   24.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00010.html
   25.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00052.html
   26.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html
   27.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00276.html
   28.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00336.html
   29.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00358.html
   30.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00361.html
   31.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00394.html
   32.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html
   33.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00250.html
   34.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00114.html
   35.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00009.html
   36.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00054.html
   37.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00104.html
   38.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00046.html
   39.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html
   40.
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html
   41. http://people.debian.org/~branden/
   42. http://www.eklektix.com/
   43. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор