PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[Luke Schierer]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:11:35AM +0100, Anatoliy Belsky wrote:
> ok, you just telling me - I'm doing so, just because my father did, and he has 
> done it so, because his father did ... is this something progressive? does 
> this politic have a drop of the reality? but the law is the law ... I've 
> nothing to say here ... if all the village is beating someone with rocks, I 
> can do it .. too? I hope only, the times gonna be changed some day ... you're 
> going from one extreme to another, I want to stay in the mean ...
> 
> Regards 

I was responding to his statement that he felt restricted by the GPL.
"I don't feel free" is perhaps a reason to change a law, or not use a
piece of software but does not in and of itself give you license to disobey it.

luke

> 
> On Monday 03 March 2008 22:42, Luke Schierer wrote:
> > Anatoliy Belsky wrote:
> > > yeah, therefore i'm writing "I see the freedom of the GPL in this case as
> > > a compulsion". There is nobody on the mailing list, who siad - ok, we
> > > could give him a chance with his lunatic idea. why?
> > >
> > > On Monday 03 March 2008 22:27, Daniel Atallah wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Anatoliy Belsky <anatoliy at belsky.info>
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I can word it otherwise - it you always follow the GPL rules, it isn't
> > >>> always
> > >>> the best. The world has much more faces ... if you awaiting, that the
> > >>> world
> > >>> will be allways as u will, may be, you will be sometimes dissapointed
> > >>> (as i'm
> > >>> now) :)
> > >>
> > >> I guess this ties into my point about the licensing applying whether or
> > >> not you like it.
> > >>
> > >> -D
> >
> > For good or for ill, neither we nor any previous developer has required
> > that those submitting patches assign copyright to either ourselves or to
> > a non-profit.  This means that to grant *any* exception to the license,
> > to change it, or even to make it not apply to someone, *everyone* who
> > we, or our predecessors, have *ever* accepted even one line of code from
> > must agree to the change, or the exception, or the exemption.
> >
> > This means, in practice, that we are legally bound to not grant any
> > exceptions, exemptions so on.  We *cannot* legally speak for all of
> > those people.
> >
> > Yes, that means that at times the GPL acts to compel someone to do
> > something (release source code under the GPL) that they do not want to
> > do.  That is what the GPL was intended to do, protect the source code
> > from those who would download it, and preserve the freedoms of all other
> > users from that one.
> >
> > You may consider this a flaw in the GPL.  Others consider it a strength.
> >   Which opinion you hold is irrelevant, the law is the law.
> >
> > This is precisely true of *all* laws.  For example, some people
> > (sociopaths for example) consider the laws forbidding murder to be a
> > restriction.  Others consider them a means of preserving freedom (from
> > being killed or threated with death). This is an extreme example, but
> > holds true of all laws.
> >
> > luke
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>