>> The suspended support and the removal of all binaries is brought to
>> you by an unhappy GPL waving, source demanding, end-user........ Since
>> this person has pushed the issue of the GPL status of the source to
>> the limit
>[...]
>> Mike, you're a real hero to all of us. Instead of having just binary
>> only support we now have no support at all. Thank you very much.
>
>Actually, I am grateful to him. If there's some reason that the software
>can't be offered as GPL, the end user shouldn't be mislead into thinking
>it is.
>
>GPL is very specific, you can't have it and then say, "But make an
>exception for this case, because it inconveniences me". Sorry. If you
>really want a GPL'd APC driver, there's apcd out there somewhere...
>
>Frankly, this hasn't stopped anything; the sources for 2.8.x are floating
>around out there now, and unless APC actually takes legal action against
>the author, they're perfectly legal for use according to the GPL. The
>"binaries are there because they let me do it" only lasts until they stop
>letting him do it.
The sources to 2.9.6 are easily available out there. A little
snooping will find later sources as well. At any rate, your
arguments are exactly mine. Following the GPL license certainly
does not mean "when I feel like it unless it inconveniences me".
>> >Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocate
>>
>> "narrow minded idiot without a clue" would be better fitting.
>
>Obviously for Mike (and myself), it's a matter of trying to ensure that
>the GPL is properly abided by. There were only two ways that that the GPL
>licensing issue could have been resolved in this case:
>
>a) re-release the sources, or
>
>b) remove the binaries.
Correct.
>I'd have preferred a), but b) works as well, especially since there are
>still versions of the apcupsd GPL'd sources out there (see above about APC
>winning a ruling against the author, though; if that happens, you'll have
>to cease use of the software...which would probably be the case for the
>binary-only version too, so maybe it's better this way all around).
I'd initially have preferred a) because it would have let me
actually get the thing working, and thus I would have personally
benefitted.
Now however, due to all the negativity towards me, I feel much in
the frame of mind of Andre did when he was angry at me. I don't
want APC to benefit at all from the program now, until they
release Andre from the hold they now have on him. I don't think
they should benefit in the interim.
Keep in mind that I TOO cannot use apcupsd or my UPS because of
all this. I just respect the GPL, the free software movement,
and what it all stands for - beyond my own personal gain.
>More to the point, however, I don't think anyone was trying to be a "hero
>to the people here; those arguing this point were arguing a case for GPL
>enforcement, not for getting more software into everyone's hands. If you
>failed to see what he was really arguing for, and that his agenda was
>different than yours, perhaps you're more in need of a clue than he?
Thank you for realizing my point. My point was standing up for
the GPL. Without the GPL, NONE of us would be running the
current free operating system and software that we are currently
using. As such, I feel it VERY important to protect the GPL and
its meaning. In this particular case, I too lose out since I
have a useless UPS. So, the fact that someone else does too, and
may be angry with me doesn't hold much water in my book, and even
less when they call me an idiot in a public forum.
If anything, such comments will only push me to take the matter
to the FSF.
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/