owl <owl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article <rtqoh5-ms5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
>> GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
> "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is often offered for
> no fee at all and most often with no way to track any distribution or
> even the "customer base". Whoever does use the software is granted the
> rights of the copyright holders for the code via some license like the
> GPL for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are generally
> not covered with this. If a user of such software thinks he needs more
> rights from third parties, then he has to care for this on his own. A
> RAND licensing for such other rights might still ease his operations but
> it just negates the freeness of a particular piece of software ??? written
> and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing really free
> software for a standard that incorporates RAND components therefore is a
> problem for the free and open source community."
Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |