| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Nice ad hominem attackNice ad hominem attackPosted Oct 25, 2004 8:56 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670)In reply to: Nice ad hominem attack by BrucePerens Parent article: How to be a Free Software zealot (NewsForge)
Mozilla Firefox should be considered non-free, IMHO. They use their
(Log in to post comments)
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 9:02 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Trademarks have nothing to do with Open Source; Linux(R) itself is trademarked by one L. Torvalds.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 10:42 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Trademarks have everything to do with open source. Much like copyrighthas everything to do with it. The GPL license builds on copyright law. But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. Much like Linux itself is a trademark of Linus, Linux itself is also a copyright of numerous people. The license under which you can use it is what open source is all about.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 12:42 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. If your code contains trademarks or copyrighted works that are not your own, normal restrictions apply. I'm pretty sure the GPL respects that, so what's the problem?
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 21:23 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] I was merely explaning how trademark law as well as copyright law canretrict distribution of software, as you said they have nothing to do with each other. My original comment was about that I think that a software should have all parts free (copyright as well as trademark license) to be considered free as a whole, and gave Firefox as a counterexample.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 21:50 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I am not quite sure what you mean. The GPL is actually quite restrictive, and only through its restrictions does it provide freedom. This is a way of saying that freedom is not as simple as getting rid of as much restrictions as we can.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 9:34 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Yeah yeah yeah ..
Tell you what if everyone that has crawled out of the wood work on the
It is just amazing how many people appear when some worm of a jurno has got his nutts in his hands .
Mozilla BTW is great and the fact that people MIGHT have to ask to include it in a distro places no problems oj it at all AFAICS
Pete .
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 10:44 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Indeed. So where are you in all this? Your opinion might carry some moreweight if you were actually a packager for a major distro having to deal with all this stuff.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 12:14 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Having heard a lot about the FSF's philosophy, the grandparent is right.
All Mozilla's trademark stuff does is shoot THEMSELVES in the foot if they play nasty.
It does NOT restrict the USER's freedom at all. Don't forget - the FSF doesn't give a damn about DISTRIBUTORS.
Cheers,
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Nov 4, 2004 15:57 UTC (Thu) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] On the contrary. It is the user's freedoms that are being restricted. Thedistributions can all ask and get special exceptions. Each and every user that wants to extend Mozilla in some way can't possibly ask the Mozilla organisation for special permission. That is the case today. Unless you want to redo the graphics and change the name, of couse, but that might be a bit more work than you originally had expected. It's your choice.
|
|
||||||||||||