A lot of this is petty nonsense, but I'll humor you anyway. > Walter is still charging > for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any > Open Source/"free" software idea.
If you have a naive understanding of the way those terms are used nowadays, yes. I implore you to read the definitions of open source and free software given by the OSI and FSF, and you will find nothing prohibiting charging fees for copies, and indeed you may find encouragement. > And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" > statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. Bollocks in what sense? In a legal sense, you couldn't be more wrong. Now you do say that you're not an attorney, so perhaps you should talk to one about the terms of the license in question. I assure you they will fall on my side. By the letter of the license, this absolutely is legit. Now, if you think it's silly to have terms allowing such a situation to occur, that's a completely different argument that I'm not interested in having. I would also accept criticism if you could identify an instance in which I had a 'holier than thou' attitude on this mailing list. I do prefer free software to proprietary, and I have expressed before my interest in making and using only free software, but I don't believe I have ever pretended to be above other users who don't. On the contrary, it is you who come across as a condescending elitist in this thread, and your seniority in the project has no bearing on the facts being discussed. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 08/25/2018 04:15 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 8/24/2018 4:48 AM, David McMackins wrote: >>> in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. >> You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to >> clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman, >> and I won't be part of the FSF much longer. > Well, ever since you got on this mailing list, you are making statements > that are showing the clear symptoms of the Stallman virus, with a "I am > holier than you" attitude when it comes to tools and applications > related to FreeDOS. There simply is an ever growing disconnect between > what Stallman and the FSF are trying to promote and real life. Some > people understand this, some don't. Or take a really long time to > realize that... >> FreeDOS claims to be a free >> system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which >> was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less >> confusing and more friendly to businesses). > FreeDOS is perfectly free/open source. You have the source and can > modify it, improve it. But as it has been shown in the +20 years that I > am following this project (doubt that there is anyone but Jim Hall > active on here who is participating longer than me by now) that there is > only an extremely limited number of people that are really active. Or > stay around for a prolonged period of time. And a lot of folks that join > lately (well, for at least the last 10 years), seem to see FreeDOS as a > second coming of Linux or the like, hardly understanding the differences > between DOS and later OS. And that quite frankly shows. >> >> Anyway, all I noticed is that someone made a claim that this compiler >> couldn't have been released under the Boost license because the original >> site is still asking a fee for a copy of the source. Because the Boost >> license is a free license, we can already toss out this claim, because >> it goes against the definition without even having to get into the >> specifics. The FSF, OSI, and others have already done the looking for us. > What the FSF/OSI might have done is to see if that license (like sooo > many before) is fitting their agenda or not. What I was questioning was > why the supposed change in license was not mentioned anywhere on the > Digital Mars web site, while on the same site, Walter is still charging > for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any Open > Source/"free" software idea. And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" > statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. >> It may very well be the case that this compiler has not actually been >> relicensed under the Boost license, but the fee is not evidence of this. > You're still kidding. The best explanation, as the web site has not been > updated for almost a year, since the release of the 8.57 version of the > basic compiler, that the web site also has not been updated to reflect > the change in the license, from a freeware but closed source compiler, > to an Open Source one, regardless of what the license is called (there > are so many of them around those days that it is hard to keep up with > them and what, if any, the differences are between them, I am a > programmer, not a lawyer). This just happened 3 month ago (according to > Github). > > I will spend some time this weekend to see what actually is available on > Github. > > One of the objections that I had with Roy's original post was the claim > that the situation with Digital Mars C(++) would be better than > OpenWatcom, which it isn't by a long shot. OpenWatcom is freely > available, compileable and ready for improvements (if you have the > skills) by itself, and you don't need to buy any source code and use a > different compiler (Walter's D compiler) to actualy make any such > changes. For me, this puts it practically more in line with the likewise > freely available Borland/Turbo C(++) compiler. > > Ralf > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
