On Friday 10 October 2008 08:16, Duncan wrote: > which is what this is, from my perspective. If it's unfree with > SugarCRM (and with the xfree86 license change that lead to the xorg > split), it's unfree with GNU. > So why is the argument made that SugarCRM and xfree86 doing it is wrong, > but GNU doing it is somehow not only right, but that not complying is > wrong?
Because the other two are saying, by changing their licenses, "comply or we will sue you," and GNU is saying, "comply or we will continue to irritate you." But the people who don't comply would be irritated by GNU as a political entity whether or not they said anything, so it's a wash. If GNU changed the GPL to add "and you must refer to your product as GNU/Productname", you would be right. But you're comparing two controversial license changes, which definitely have a legal component, to what's essentially a branding campaign in GNU's case. "Don't forget that what you call Linux is mostly GNU." I don't think it's accurate on most Linux users' machines anymore as it was back in the days when it was daring to run graphical stuff on Linux, but it's certainly not a legal controversy. Rob _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
