Heey… this is my thread and u guys are completely OT!!! :twisted:
Naah… kidding :lol:
Go ahead, I believe an exchange of information should be allowed to take whatever possible direction, since this will uncover a lot of information on how we think and what we know. (And perhaps even HOW we know…)
SigmaNunki: To you I can say that I did not consider your post as agressive, but after having reread it, I can see why certain weak souls might have considerer it aggressive or harsh. Personally I considered it more like spirited, in the meaning that you put your spirit in those words (if you understand what I mean :))
That is also a part of the reason why I’ve spended so many hours to try and clarify some of the deeper legal issues ( note: solving that legal crap is not going very well… I’m on the verge of entering the state of kernelpanic )
And trust me… your post was not even close to be rough… not at all… I’m used to much worse. I know flaming. I know harshness. I know aggressiveness… and your post was none of these.
umccullough: To you I can say that I just forgot what I was about to say to you… but I’ll return when I remember it… but it’s likely a part of the answer to Sigmanunki. I think… I can’t remember now… whatever.
To both of you: I’m still trying to figure out certain legal matters according to the GPL-license and a few others as well - and it’s likely to take quite a while before I’ve reached a point where I post an answer… damn I hate that legal crap
. o O ( Rules are Rules and Rules must be broken )
The very fact that there’s so many complex legal things to go through make the GPL seem complicated, and less open. MIT is obviously a simple license that doesn’t enforce protection of the code - but in practice it has not really been a problem - BSD is still around, and still open source - other products may have taken stuff from BSD (even Haiku gets a lot of their code from them), and some of these may keep their code closed - but I personally don’t see anything wrong with that. MIT gives them the express permission to do just that.
Most users won’t really care about the license. They won’t be interested in assurances the source will always be available (although obviosuly it will anyway, this is just not protected with a license). BeOS was all about simplicity - whenever I install a GPL prog and have to agree to the license, I have horrible memories of it being exactly like the Microsoft EULA, very long and complicated, and something that noone ever reads. MIT is nice and simple, and basically says “here’s the product, do what you want with it”.
I’m obviously not going to stop you spending hours researching the various legal implications, but I’ll just point out it is a completely pointless endeavour - the Haiku admin team are not going to change the license now - and I’m sure there’s very few people worldwide reading this thread.
I have mentioned this before, but Haiku is not just licensed under the terms of the MIT license. The source tree contains code licensed as LGPL, BSD, Be Sample Code License, and a few others. Haiku is a collection of independent parts and each of these parts has its own license. But for any stuff that we write ourselves, we try to stick to the MIT license as much as possible.
The very fact that there's so many complex legal things to go through make the GPL seem complicated, and less open. MIT is obviously a simple license that doesn't enforce protection of the code - but in practice it has not really been a problem - BSD is still around, and still open source - other products may have taken stuff from BSD (even Haiku gets a lot of their code from them), and some of these may keep their code closed - but I personally don't see anything wrong with that. MIT gives them the express permission to do just that.
I wasn’t just talking about the GPL. The MIT-license also have several legal issues I’m trying to figure out right now.
Quote:
Most users won't really care about the license. They won't be interested in assurances the source will always be available (although obviosuly it will anyway, this is just not protected with a license). BeOS was all about simplicity - whenever I install a GPL prog and have to agree to the license, I have horrible memories of it being exactly like the Microsoft EULA, very long and complicated, and something that noone ever reads. MIT is nice and simple, and basically says "here's the product, do what you want with it".
My reply to this part will come in my reply to SigmaNunki. but none of these simple licenses are as simple as you seem to believe. I will show that in my upcoming reply.
Quote:
I'm obviously not going to stop you spending hours researching the various legal implications, but I'll just point out it is a completely pointless endeavour - the Haiku admin team are not going to change the license now - and I'm sure there's very few people worldwide reading this thread.
Simon
You have completely misunderstood my earlier posts. The reason why I’m trying to figure out the legal implications for all the involved licenses is because SigmaNunki brought up some issues which deserves a thorough investigation. And not because I want any license changed. It is wise to read the posts one is to answer, before one starts answering these post
I doubt that many are reading this thread and it doesn’t matter. The important thing is that information is being shared.
And no… it’s not a completely pointless endeavour… because my point is not the point you obviously think it is.
