Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8427 > unrolled thread

GPL and commercial Forths

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800
    Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 10:34 -0800
      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 10:50 -0800
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:11 -0800
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 17:58 -0500
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:26 -0800
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 15:21 -0800
                Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 05:51 -0500
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:48 -0800
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:35 -0600
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:41 -0500
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:12 +0100
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 13:58 -0800
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 17:03 -0600
                Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:10 -0500
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 05:21 -0600
                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-02 00:45 +0100
                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:59 -0600
                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:23 -0800
                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 01:27 +0100
                        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 18:35 -0600
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:47 +0000
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-01 19:03 +0100
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 21:19 +0100
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:35 -0600
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:36 -0800
                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:18 +0100
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 05:14 -0800
                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 19:16 +0100
                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 14:09 -0800
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 17:37 -0800
      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:15 +0000
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 09:56 -0800
    Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 19:44 +0100
      Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:51 +0000
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 07:55 -0800
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 10:48 -0800
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-31 13:49 +0000
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:21 +0000
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:53 -0800
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 16:41 +0000
    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 11:04 -0800
    Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:44 +0000
    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-01 10:12 +0000
      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 15:34 +0100
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-01 08:50 -1000
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 13:13 -0800
        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-02 10:46 +0000
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:17 -0800
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 12:39 +0000
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:43 -0800
          Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-03 11:53 +0000
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2012-01-03 13:23 +0100
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:06 +0000
              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 06:14 -0800
                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 15:53 +0000
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:19 -0800
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:46 -0800
                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 15:12 -0800
                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-04 03:43 +0000
                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 22:53 -0800
                        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 07:30 +0000
                          Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 14:19 +0100
                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 16:06 +0000
                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-06 10:26 -0600
                                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 22:16 +0100
                                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 07:18 +0000
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:16 -0600
                          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 07:33 -0800
                          Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 08:12 -0800
                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 09:02 +0000
                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:23 -0600
                                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 14:07 +0000
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 08:32 -0600
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:36 -0800
                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 07:46 -0800
                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:23 -0800
                                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 17:07 +0000
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 10:48 -0800
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 11:10 -0800
                                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 11:01 +0000
                                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 17:26 -0800
                                        Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 03:00 +0000
                                          Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-11 12:10 +0000
                                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 13:21 +0000
                                          Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 05:57 -0600
                                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 16:17 +0100
                                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:21 -0800
                                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 16:35 +0000
                                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 11:01 -0600
                                              Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 18:55 +0100
                                                Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-13 07:56 -0800
                                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 08:42 -0800
                                                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-13 19:20 +0100
                                                      Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 14:01 -0800
                                                    Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-14 03:37 +0000
                                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-14 11:57 +0000
                                            Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:32 -0800
                                  Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-09 01:58 +0000
            Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 16:09 +0000

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#8579

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> Remember folks, Andy is a GPL stooge because he gets paid by Red Hat

Whatever, please tell us why you are using an anonymous remailer as 
reply address, who's paying you to spit foam against the GPL, and what 
drugs you are smoking.  I'm quite sure, these drugs are illegal.

To be honest, the GPL is an evil plan of long-haired bearded geeks to 
take over the world.  It is a virus that will cause rapid hair growth, 
the desire to wear T-shirts with incomprehensible strange messages, and 
allergies against ties and suits.  Bill and Melinda Gates donated half a 
billion dollars to the US pharma industry to research a vaccine against 
that disease, but the virus is stronger!  Now even Microsoft commits 
patches to the Linux kernel!

Sprinkle yourself with holy water, and if you feel the desire to release 
some source code to others, use only the MITL or BSDL, otherwise the 
world will come to an end (ok, it's 2012, the world will come to an end 
anyways, because some ancient Maya calendar makers thought "up to 2012 
is good enough, our civilization will die before"). Before we all die, 
feed a few trolls with some red herrings.

<°))))><

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8580

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> Before we all die, feed a few trolls with some red herrings.
> <?))))><

Ah, yes.  Point taken.  :-)

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8592

In article <jdof6f$bme$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
>Competition.  Take a brokerage.  It runs software to make money.  If all
>their competitors had their software, they couldn't make any money.

Wrong. I'll not talk about brokerage, because I don't consider that
an activity contributing to wealth.

In Holland and Belgium there is a consortium of companies that make
machines. They open-sourced, and have a lot of benefits:
- they are no longer dependend from specialist companies that
   try to gain a monopoly and extort
- they correct each others mistakes.
Crucial parts, relating to their own special machines, of course
are kept properietary.

They are not in the business of selling software-as-a-commodity.
Bernd Paysan has done a good job in explaining why that is a dying
business model anyway.

>Numerous other businesses make their money from internal software: airlines,
>package shipping, manufacturing, etc.  The key to most businesses is not
>customer support or a quality product but the software that runs their
>operations.

You nail this one. Now explain to me why an airline could not run
their stuff on linux and must use a proprietary system.
(Their core business programs is another matter.)

>Rod Pemberton

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8565

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from taking
> free software, extending it, and making it proprietary.

Free means free except when the FSF lemmings are speaking. The point of the
MIT and BSD licenses is true software freedom. Do what you want, except
don't say you wrote something you didn't write.

The GPL is a viral license based on a theology that freedom is bad and
things don't belong to the people who created them. It's communism at its
worst.

> With the GPL, everyone has the right to the extended version as well as
> the original.

No, with the GPL everyone has the *authority* to any infected versions. You
misunderstand what rights and authority are and how they differ but it's
fundamental.

> So, the GPL is effectively *less* restrictive than the MIT and BSD
> licenses:

Maybe in your bizarro world but not in reality.

> with the GPL, everyone has the right to both versions.

No, everyone has the *use* of both versions. If they had the right to both
vversions, as you claim, they could do whatever they want including closing
the source. They cannot, so clearly they have no rights accept access.

> The GPL provides the recipients of the software more freedom, 

Forcing people to do things your way can never be called freedom. The GPL is
the most restrictive and the least free of any so-called open source
license. That is by design, not by accident. Please stop lying. You have the
right to be a forcible open source advocate but it's dishonest to lie and
say the GPL is about freedom. The GPL is about forcing people to do what you
want them to do and to pray at your church. True free software licenses are
just about freedom to do whatever you want, they don't tell you where you
have to pray or what to do or what to believe in. The GPL is a circus and
not everybody wants a ticket. Stop the lying and you can have your opinions.

> but they have to respect everyone else's freedom too. 

No they don't, they just have to open source to whatever the GPL infects.
That's far from the same thing. GPL isn't about respecting anything. It's
viral, it's forcible, it's political, it's religious. Just don't keep lying
and say it's about freedom, because GPL and freedom have no connection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8569

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> The GPL is a viral license based on a theology that freedom is bad and
> things don't belong to the people who created them. It's communism at
> its worst.

Communism at its worst?  I think about Pol Pots killing fields, Stalin's 
gulags, or Mao's great-leap-forward famine or his cultural revolution; 
that's communism at its worst.  Show me the millions of people that died 
because of GPL.  As said before, the last RedHat employee I saw did not 
look starved.  Maybe he'll die a bit sooner than necessary from eating 
too much ;-).

One of the three mottos of 1984 is "freedom is slavery".  You really buy 
into this one.  You think the slavery based on copyright is freedom, and 
the freedom of copyleft is slavery.  This is so far into gaga land that 
I can't follow.  My suggestion: Whatever drugs you are taking by the 
moment, stop it.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8575

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from taking
>> free software, extending it, and making it proprietary.
> 
> Free means free except when the FSF lemmings are speaking. The point
> of the MIT and BSD licenses is true software freedom. Do what you
> want, except don't say you wrote something you didn't write.
> 
> The GPL is a viral license based on a theology that freedom is bad
> and things don't belong to the people who created them. It's
> communism at its worst.

This is just a string of unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions.

>> With the GPL, everyone has the right to the extended version as well as
>> the original.
> 
> No, with the GPL everyone has the *authority* to any infected versions. You
> misunderstand what rights and authority are and how they differ but it's
> fundamental.

What does "authority to any infected versions" mean, exactly?

>> So, the GPL is effectively *less* restrictive than the MIT and BSD
>> licenses:
> 
> Maybe in your bizarro world but not in reality.
> 
>> with the GPL, everyone has the right to both versions.
> 
> No, everyone has the *use* of both versions. If they had the right
> to both vversions, as you claim, they could do whatever they want
> including closing the source.

The idea of the GPL is to maximize the amount of free software, and it
does that by insisting that all derived works are also free software.
Everyone producing a derived work has to decide whether that's a deal
they want to accept.  Some do, some don't.

> They cannot, so clearly they have no rights accept access.

They have the rights to exactly the four freedoms that define free
software: the right to run, study, change, and redistribute.

>> The GPL provides the recipients of the software more freedom, 
> 
> Forcing people to do things your way can never be called
> freedom.

Forcing them to do what, exactly?  They don't have to use it if
they don't want.

> The GPL is the most restrictive and the least free of any so-called
> open source license. That is by design, not by accident. Please stop
> lying. You have the right to be a forcible open source advocate but
> it's dishonest to lie and say the GPL is about freedom. The GPL is
> about forcing people to do what you want them to do and to pray at
> your church.

No it isn't.  It's a deal freely entered into.

> True free software licenses are just about freedom to do whatever
> you want, they don't tell you where you have to pray or what to do
> or what to believe in. The GPL is a circus and not everybody wants a
> ticket.

So don't use GPL'd software, then.

> Stop the lying and you can have your opinions.

As can you.

>> but they have to respect everyone else's freedom too. 
> 
> No they don't, they just have to open source to whatever the GPL
> infects.  That's far from the same thing. GPL isn't about respecting
> anything. It's viral, it's forcible, it's political, it's
> religious. Just don't keep lying and say it's about freedom, because
> GPL and freedom have no connection.

It's about freedom.  Whether you like it or not.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8581

On Jan 1, 1:03 pm, Fritz Wuehler
<fr...@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> The GPL is a viral license based on a theology that
> freedom is bad and things don't belong to the
> people who created them. It's communism at its
> worst.

This is obviously false, whether the "communism" in the claim is
"communism" in practice or the hypothetical "communism" of communist
ideology.

"Communism" in practice is centralized state socialism, under which an
individual software author would have to release his software under
whatever terms the Central Committee dictated. The GPL is the opposite
of that, in which the individual creator dictates the terms.

"Communism" in ideology is from each according to their abilities, to
each according to their needs, and those with the ability to create
software would not be entitled to restrict the use of their work to
those who went along with their license terms, so, again, the GPL
system in which the individual creator dictates the terms for the use
of their creation would not be permitted.

The ideal of the open software movement would indeed seem to involve
communities of authors, each contributing to the development of a
larger work, and each benefiting from that development, with a broader
public benefit from the ability to use those works. But *an individual
creator* selecting a license that they believe will contribute to that
vision is not "communism".

Especially when the decision is made by someone who wants to share the
work, but does not want someone else to build upon their work behind
closed doors: the idea that the preference of the individual creator
matters in terms of the social use of a means of production is
antithetical to communist ideology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8667

BruceMcF wrote:
> "Communism" in ideology is from each according to their abilities, to
> each according to their needs, and those with the ability to create
> software would not be entitled to restrict the use of their work to
> those who went along with their license terms, so, again, the GPL
> system in which the individual creator dictates the terms for the use
> of their creation would not be permitted.

Well, one could imagine a legal system where "share alike", i.e. 
copyleft is the way to deal with "intellectual property".  Actually, 
this is not at all communist ideology (if it is ideology, then 
libertarian), but even mainstream classical economists come to that 
conclusion (Boldrin and Levine in "Against Intellectual Monopolies": 
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm).

They come to the conclusion that patents are so evil that they should be 
completely abolished.  Their conclusion about copyright is less extreme 
- they conclude that a share-alike system like the GPL is better than no 
copyright at all.  If a government follows their advice, it would be 
essentially GPL for everybody, because even when you give additional 
permissions (allow to add restrictions), the next party would not be 
allowed to add more restrictions than the GPL does, because that would 
be the most restrictive license in such a hypothetical system.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8676

On Jan 2, 8:18 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> ... Actually,
> this is not at all communist ideology (if it is ideology, then
> libertarian), but even mainstream classical economists come to
> that conclusion
> ~ Boldrin and Levine in "Against Intellectual Monopolies"
> http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

> They come to the conclusion that patents are so evil that they
> should be completely abolished.

Ah, but the original theory of patent was to foster innovation and
invention, and genuine innovation and invention is outside the scope
of mainstream classical economics. The unit of analysis of informed
choice followed by performance has serious cart-horse problems when
faced with situations where the choice is to engage in a performance
that will bring new information into existence.

The New Institutional unit of analysis of transaction followed by
performance might allow that cart-horse problem to be overcome, but
New Institutionalists have a strong incentive to stay in communication
contact with mainstream classical economic terms, to continue to be
publishable in mainstream economic journals, so that potential does
not seem to be commonly followed up on.

In any event, yes, intellectual property rights, like land property
rights and other property rights, are social institutions, and a share
and share alike foundation for rules for intellectual property rights
would appear to be one coherent system. But it would seem to be more
intellectually compatible with libertarianism, communalism, or
anarchism than with communism, either in theory or in practice as
centralized state socialism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8684

BruceMcF wrote:
> Ah, but the original theory of patent was to foster innovation and
> invention, and genuine innovation and invention is outside the scope
> of mainstream classical economics.

I really doubt that.  The statute of patents is of 1623.  I expect 
religious wars, witch hunting, and pestilence when I'm thinking about 
that time frame, but not fostering innovation and invention, and sane 
theories about that field of economy (markets with non-rivalrous goods).  
And indeed, a closer look reveals that the statute of patents did 
*abolish* almost all patents that were given at that time, and seemed to 
just have forgotten about patents on inventions.  Probably because there 
weren't any, it was just a hypothetical thing with no practical 
relevance.

The original theory (the one of 1623) about patents was that they led to 
corruption, and the monopolies harmed the economy.  This theory is 
sound.  Please no lame excuses for forgetting the patent on invention, 
but I really doubt that it was intentional and backed by a theoretical 
foundation that would stand the knowledge of the 21st century.

"A wise man admits his mistakes and corrects them" - Confucius.  
Apparently, our legal system has no way to admit and correct mistakes. 
Some recent laws had evaluations attached to them, i.e. moving to a more 
scientific approach, but these are really old laws.

I have no idea where the "theory" of patents as fostering innovations 
came from and how it was verified that it did have that effect.  The 
hisorical facts of countries with and without patents at the same time 
(e.g. Germany vs. England in the 1860s or US west coast against east 
coast in the 1900s) all tell otherwise: Patents work against 
innovations.  Often enough, industries only start to use patents when 
they are mature, most of the innovations already happened, and the few 
big players in that mature industry want to consolidate and keep 
potential disruptive newcomers out.  And they succeed.  Or partly so, 
because the disruptive newcomers find other locations where patents 
don't stop them - like making movies in Hollywood, where Edison's arm 
didn't reach to.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8689

On Jan 5, 1:16 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> BruceMcF wrote:
> > Ah, but the original theory of patent was to foster innovation and
> > invention, and genuine innovation and invention is outside the scope
> > of mainstream classical economics.
>
> I really doubt that.  The statute of patents is of 1623.  I expect
> religious wars, witch hunting, and pestilence when I'm thinking
> about that time frame, ..

Also think about European "princes" competing to win a surplus of the
silver and gold being brought back from the New World, to hold
military technological advantages wthin their borders  and to smuggle
military technological advantages from other realms.  These are the
mercantalists, and you may find their theories false ~ they are
certainly expressed in archaic language ~ but we are talking about the
1600's, not the 600's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8583

On Jan 1, 11:03 am, Fritz Wuehler
<fr...@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> The GPL is a viral license based on a theology that freedom is bad and
> things don't belong to the people who created them. It's communism at its
> worst.
Using loaded words where they don't fit is trolling at its best.
Rather than defending an ideaology, look at the track record of GPL.
Outside of subjective ideas about "right" and "wrong", has it
delivered value? I think it has.

Red Hat did not fall on its face the way I thought it would. Nor QT,
nor Google's mobile platform Android. No, it turns out they're kicking
ass by fanning the flames rather than trying to turn a profit by
limiting oxygen to the fire.

-Brad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8465

In article <de9fe0c7-652c-4eb8-954b-5441f76d12da@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
BruceMcF  <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 12:30=A0pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Are
GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) >>
Forth compatible with GPL? According to >>
<SNIP>
>
>> What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS
>> extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #,
>> which is statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc. The "library" is
>> an intrinsic part of the Forth implementation. You can't just roll
>> your own GPL Forth library. You can, but it's like writing a whole
>> new Forth.
>
>For the original author who wishes to release a portable open source
>Forth application, the simple answer is just to give permission to
>compile it on a commercial system and distribute the result subject to
>distributing the application source blah blah blah.

The party that is most likely to object to distributing the
binary is the compiler writer. Distribution binaries may or may
not be subject to royalties.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8483

On Dec 30, 6:15 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> The party that is most likely to object to distributing the
> binary is the compiler writer. Distribution binaries may or may
> not be subject to royalties.

Of course ~ but everyone whose copyrighted code is used gets a say on
the terms under which that use may take place. If the author of open
source code wishes to allow it to be compiled on any compiler and
distributed in binary form, its straightforward to grant that
permission as an addition to the terms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8429

Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> writes:

Hi Brad,

> Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) Forths
> compatible with GPL? According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
> it seems they are not.

I read this FAQ the way that _yes_, it is possible to write GPL licensed
applications using non-GPL languages/tools/libraries, but it is not the
desired way to help the cause of free software.

The same problem exists for many languages (it existed for Java for a
long time, it existed for Qt based applications in the past and was the
reason for the Gnome-Desktop-Project, and it still exists for .NET
applicaitons that use commercial libraries ...).

>
> What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS
> extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #, which is
> statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc. The "library" is an intrinsic
> part of the Forth implementation. You can't just roll your own GPL
> Forth library. You can, but it's like writing a whole new Forth.

I my point of view there is not the same 'library' concept in Forth in
the way it exists in other languages. In fact, the situation is Forth is
often better, because if there is GPL licensed sourcecode that depends
on a 'word' that only exists in an commercial Forth, it should be
possible to add the missing 'word' as an open source definition to the system
and be able to use the free software. 

I'm not aware that it is possible to have copyright protection on the
API (the word and the parameters passed) of a function/word, but I might
be wrong.

-- Carsten 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8474

cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) writes:
>I'm not aware that it is possible to have copyright protection on the
>API (the word and the parameters passed) of a function/word, but I might
>be wrong.

If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is
considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a
test of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation
(even if distributed separately), so the licenses of the
implementation and the work have to be compatible to allow
distribution of the work.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8479

On Dec 30, 5:51 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is
> considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a
> test of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation
> (even if distributed separately), so the licenses of the
> implementation and the work have to be compatible to allow
> distribution of the work.

Are my Windows apps that call the Win32 API a derived work of MS
Windows? Can I put such apps under GPL? If they are SwiftForth apps
without interpreter access, does the non-freeness of SwiftForth affect
their GPL status?

-Brad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8490

On Dec 30, 10:55 am, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are my Windows apps that call the Win32 API a derived work of MS
> Windows? Can I put such apps under GPL?

Is it the case that the API still only has one implementation?

You certainly could put them under GPLv3, since the Win32 API would be
considered a System Library, subject to the general System Library
disclaimer, and that leaves it compatible with the Win32 API terms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8514

Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> writes:
>On Dec 30, 5:51=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is
>> considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a
>> test of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation
>> (even if distributed separately), so the licenses of the
>> implementation and the work have to be compatible to allow
>> distribution of the work.
>
>Are my Windows apps that call the Win32 API a derived work of MS
>Windows?

There are multiple implementations of this API from MS, and there is
WINE and maybe other implementations, so no, I doubt that it is a
derived work of Windows.  But even if it is:

> Can I put such apps under GPL?

Yes, you can distribute such apps under the GPL, because of the system
library exception.

> If they are SwiftForth apps
>without interpreter access, does the non-freeness of SwiftForth affect
>their GPL status?

Well, there are also multiple Forth implementations, but if your app
runs only on SwiftForth (because it uses SwiftForth-specific words),
it might be seen as a derived work of SwiftForth.  I am not sure if
you can distribute it under the GPL without exception (and too lazy to
research it now), but if you can't, you can add an exception that
allows it.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8630

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:51:32 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

> cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) writes:
>>I'm not aware that it is possible to have copyright protection on the
>>API (the word and the parameters passed) of a function/word, but I might
>>be wrong.
> 
> If an API has only one implementation, any work that uses that API is
> considered (by apparently enough lawyers that I have not heard of a test
> of that thinking in court) a derived work of the implementation (even if
> distributed separately), so the licenses of the implementation and the
> work have to be compatible to allow distribution of the work.
> 
> - anton

An interesting thought, but I don't think it's right. 

Mono is an opensource implementation of the .NET framework and its APIs. 
(You can run .NET apps with the Mono runtime). Prior to Mono, the only 
implemnentation of C# and CLI was .NET itself. Mono is widely used, BTW. 

Cheers,
Arnold

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web