[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: UML cooperation

From: Micheal J
Subject: RE: UML cooperation
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:11:51 -0000

Once again. No philosophy im my reply  ;-))

| -----Original Message-----
| From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of vio
| Sent: 30 October 2000 17:11
| To: Andrew Hill
| Cc: address@hidden
| Subject: Re: UML cooperation
| Andrew Hill wrote:
| >
| > The freedom of free software is for the benfit of the user, not the
| > developer.
| Vio replied:
| What prevents me from releasing MY C++ code under GNU license
| even if I developed with tools like RR or Microsoft's VisualC++ ?
| It's My code (not Microsoft's or Rational's, they just sell tools
| !!!). Even if I had to pay for the tools I used in developing it,
| I own copyright over it (not MS or Rational), so I alone can
| decide to release it under the license of my choice. I really
| don't see why FSF believe this code has become tainted and is
| less worthy (I'm not judging here the technical merits) than code
| developed with GNU tools.

Vio, if one accepts the FSF's view that access to source code is a
prerequisite for "software freedom" then Visual C++ is a bad example. The
code you write is yours as you point out and you can supply the source but,
the program will always rely on the runtime libraries that are not yours.
You cannot supply the source to the library.

Of course the same can be said of all windows programs that rely on the
libraries provided by the Windows OS which you cannot supply the source for
(unless you were the enterprising hacker that partied in Microsoft's
intellectual property vault for months!!). Now that is extreme philosophy...

| A better explanation to this situation may come from a more
| strategic theater: FSF is apparently enforcing a policy of
| discriminating against non-GNU code amongst their ranks, in a
| move to favor the development of open source code. This would
| make more sense to me. Good. But since I am not on FSF's payroll
| (figure of speech), I am free to express my opinion that
| technical merit should outweight licensing policies, and not the
| other way around (or FSF's way). This being said, go gnue !

I believe this is right and the FSF is happy to say so. It isn't
discrimination, it is making a conscious choice to stay on the open source
path and never digress. Extreme but it's a personal choice thing...



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]