Re: Re: Fw: [Xaraya_curiosa] FW: Re: Proprietary Modules and GPL API (from postnuke devel list)

You really have got totally the wrong end of the stick.
And asking the FSF questions supposedly on our behalf when you seem to 
have the facts all a bit skewif doesnt reflect well on us.

We are not licensing anything from the FSF.
We are licensing all code under the GPL (which they happened to write - 
the dealings with the FSF stop there).

We are not trying to build on the GPL.
Its a license, if we changed it it would no longer be the GPL.
The DDF bylaws mandate an OSI approved license for all code, docs, 
etc.... and we MUST obey the bylaws.
We WILL be using the full GPL as advertised on the FSF site - we even 
link to it from every single file in the source tree.
We are NOT changing the license.

I'll say it again just to make sure - we are using the full FSF and OSI 
approved GPL.

Assigning copyright to a single legal entity is nothing to do with the 
license, and is a practice they themselves use and recommend. If someone 
should use Xaraya code in a non-GPL product it means enforcing the GPL 
is simpler as the FSF would only have to arbitrate between two 
companies, not 1 company and 35 individual developers. So it helps to 
maintain that Xaraya will remain GPL in the future.
I dont think we could make it available under any license even if we 
wanted to, but regardless we wouldnt. I expect all the DDF membership 
would resign if someone tried. I know I would. I got involved with open 
source because I believed in it - not because I wanted to help create 
conspiracies and steal code from the OSS community. It will not happen. 
That clear enough?

So please stop kicking up sandstorms - they only obscure the real issues.

If you have questions please post them here before involving, probably a 
now very confused and over worked, FSF webmaster, postnuke or anyone else.

Thanks

miko

Gregory Remington wrote:
>>Gregory, exactly where have we stated that we are going to license 
> 
> anything
> 
>>other than the GPL?  I am a bit confused by your posting this 
> 
> message.  Is
> 
>>it not good enough that Chris has posted two follow-ups to your 
> 
> original
> 
>>misconception?
> 
> 
> As I said, I jumped the gun when I saw. 
> http://www.xaraya.com/newsgroups/article.php?id=76&group=xaraya.curiosa
> 
> I believe it is good to get an opinion from the FSF regarding these 
> issues as we are dealing with software here licensed under the FSF/GNU.
> 
> 
>>It seems that you are intent on furthering your confusion that you 
> 
> had, just
> 
>>wondering exactly what you motives are in this?  Can we further 
> 
> expect next
> 
>>that we are also connected to the Taliban in some form or fashion 
> 
> because
> 
>>our website when encrypted with MD5 spells some sort of manifesto of
>>destruction?
> 
> 
> My motives are to educate developers about licensing issues regarding 
> the GPL since there still are so many unresolved issues and debates. 
> My motives are also out of commercial interests. If we are to build a 
> commercial market and legal foundation on the GPL then the FSF not the 
> DDF would seem to be the legal authority here. Am I wrong?
> 
> 
>>Then again, maybe I am just misunderstanding your motives, because 
> 
> from
> 
>>where I am sitting, they ain't looking to be pure as the driven snow.
>>Aren't misconsceptions a funny thing?
> 
> 
> I will do my best to clear up any misconceptions now and in the 
> future. None of us can claim to be pure as the driven snow. I have 
> always wondered why there needs to be a DDF when there is an FSF. Can 
> you please explain this to us?
> 
> Greg