<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Mathieu and friends,<br>
ok I saw this message down to pd-ot... and now I start to understood
the all thing...<br>
Ethically I am quite agree with Yves, it's true that free software are
used by Bush administration and for military & repressive use
sometimes... it's a hudge problem in a way, politically...<br>
The problem here is that Yves does that on software based on effectv
& PDP which PIDIP is based on and he added his own personnal &
ethical part in the licences whithout talk with the others about this,
am I wrong? So he's comment (add) to the licence seems to be in
conflict with the source...<br>
If Yves made his own piece of software 100% by himself (librairies and
stuffs) maybe this added will be valide. But in this case it is not. <br>
Also I think what you didn't accept in his attitude, what I understood,
is the fact that his statment is quite interesting to talk and push
forward in free software world and around the licences questions in the
gnu & others communities, and not just put that on piece of
librairies based on others librairies and when someone asked about it,
just don't care about a clear answer. <br>
The subject is really serious and his answer sounds like ironic and
"doesn't matter what happen with this", again maybe I am wrong... but
the core of the problem seems to be here... and that's pity. Because
it's a message to the free software community what he wrote and he
don't really assume the consequences... From my point of view he should
have been explain why he wrote that, in really clear political words...
unfortunetly he completly discredited his own toughts in this case...<br>
I think you made well in consulting the gnu community, that something
Yves should put on their table by himself, it's a political statment
that should be assumed in the right place...<br>
The question now is what effectv & PDP crews think about that?<br>
<br>
love & peace<br>
<br>
juto<br>
<blockquote cite="midPine.LNX.4.58.0601190319050.912@web.artengine.ca"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the personn concern by this didn't really give his opinion, or maybe I
am wrong he already done in a previous thread that talked about this
problem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I am only giving a summary of what happened on another mailing-list. By
consulting the archives of pd-dev and pd-ot you can very well figure out
what the personne concernée thinks of all this.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">we all agree that all versions realized since now are under GPL's
licence terms and that won't change!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Source files in PiDiP say the software is under the GPL but LICENSE.txt
says it's SIBSD plus the military clause ("not for military use...").
pdp_colorgrid.c refers to LICENSE.txt as being its license. Other files
say they are under the GPL and don't even mention LICENSE.txt. Are you
confused yet? At the very least you can't link pdp_colorgrid with anything
in PiDiP. For the other files, LICENSE.txt says that specific files may be
excepted explicitly from the license, but the way it's worded, the
military clause doesn't seem to be exceptable from. And then it's sort of
fishy if 99% of the source files get an exception from LICENSE.txt, don't
you think?
What would a lawyer make of this? (that is, apart from money)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is this double licence will affect the copy of the software, to change
the code, redistribute it...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You can't copy PiDiP nor make modified copies of it because both licenses
say that you have to preserve the existing license and the GPL license
says that you can't add more restrictions, but the military clause is an
added restriction.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">why did you talked, Mathieu, in the term "non-free software, and at
worst, it's illegal to distribute it"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, SIBSD is a very popular free software license, but the line added
specifically for PiDiP makes it non-free, and then ambiguating that with
the GPL makes more meat for the lawyers. Not like there would be much
money to be made, but many organisations have a policy to stay away from
any kind of license mess.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We need to know if this is serious or non-sense? Why Yves choose 2
licence, why GPL is not anymore suited to his work?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I can't read Yves' mind. I can only read what he wrote in his source code
and on mailing lists. BTW, please read this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001377.html">http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001377.html</a>
And then tell me, how would you deal with someone that has that kind of
attitude?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>