[Freeciv] Re: forced open source
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 11:05:51PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 10:11:58AM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > If RedHat or SuSe had any interest in legality of their RPMs,
> > they wouldn't distribute KDE at all.
>
> Why not? Is there a copyright owner alleging that KDE infringes
> on their copyright? I haven't heard of such a claim myself.
You can't legally distribute GPL work linked with QPL.
QPL isn't GPL-compatible, and GPL requires you to
distribute all sources under GPL-compatible license
if you distribute binary.
That's why Debian doesn't distribute KDE.
> > If they get such a letter, they would probably forward it to ./ and all
> > other places of interest, and under no circumstances obey it,
>
> And alienate their corporate customers that pay them actual
> money that pays their salaries? I can see you've never actually
> worked at one of these open-source companies! Hasbro may even be
> paying Red Hat for support as we speak - when I was at Cygnus, our
> customer list had companies and organizations that you would not
> imagine...
>
> > because then they would be flooded by hundreds of similar letters,
> > from Sun, Apple, MS, AT&T, etc.
>
> What on earth are you talking about???
If ``compatibility'' would be ``copyright infgingement'',
1/3rd of packages in average distribution would be illegal.
> (BTW, what makes you think the companies you list are not currently
> doing business with Red Hat? Have a look through Red Hat/Cygnus' old
> press releases...)
They might be making bussiness with Hasbro, but if someone
lawsuited opensource project on base of ``compatibility'', and won,
their mere existence would be in danger, as 1/3rd of what they distribute,
some code packages included, is more-or-less clones of some proprietary
software.
They don't care about freeciv.
They care about themselves.
> > It's quite difficult to make money from writing proprietary GNU/Linux
> > software.
> > Nobody managed to do it yet, and I doubt anyone will.
>
> Loki has certainly made money selling games for Linux. I don't
> know if they're profitable or not, as a private company they
> don't have to report their finances - are you saying you have
> some inside info to share with us?
Do they sell games ONLY for Linux ?
Or is this about 1% of their total profit ?
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, (continued)
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, SamBC, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Tobias Brox, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Per I. Mathisen, 2000/07/20
- [Freeciv] feed the troll, Brandon Van Every, 2000/07/20
- [Freeciv] Re: feed the troll, Tomasz Wegrzanowski, 2000/07/20
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Stan Shebs, 2000/07/20
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Tomasz Wegrzanowski, 2000/07/20
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Stan Shebs, 2000/07/21
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source,
Tomasz Wegrzanowski <=
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Tomasz Wegrzanowski, 2000/07/21
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Tomasz Wegrzanowski, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: forced open source, Tobias Brox, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: copyright infringement, Robert Brady, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] retractions, Brandon Van Every, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: retractions, Reinier Post, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: retractions, Brandon Van Every, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: retractions, SamBC, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: retractions, Tobias Brox, 2000/07/19
- [Freeciv] Re: copyright infringement, Tomasz Wegrzanowski, 2000/07/19
|
|