PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[Luke Schierer]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:54:03PM -0500, Luke Schierer wrote:
> 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

Actually, now that I read again, *your* idea.  

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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>