GPL

IV> Otherwise, everyone sits in the corner with the source codes... they do nothing and don’t give it to others
IV>.

IV> How about changing the status of the source codes, for example, such programs as
IV> for example, Alasm, STS, ProTracker (a happy exception! thanks to AlCo!!!),
IV> NeOS and so on? (programs are really annoying).
IV> (besides, most of the sources were obtained illegally).

IV> Maybe the transition to subj is the only real
IV> opportunity left to breathe new life into Speccy.

Do you need it? write music better. In any case, letters in 2 echo conferences
are clearly not enough to make people move, so I advise you
to forget about it and go about your direct responsibilities =)

JTN/4D

On 13 Sep 02, Ilya Vinogradov wrote to All:

IV> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to GPL
IV>?

You’re at the wrong time. ms is going to do something with this license and it will not
be used. Linux will be the first to suffer, by the way. so I think that this proposal may become completely ridiculous in the future. although the most pirate
computer race are the Spectrumists ;)
CrackEmAll! =)

ZXNet: 500:8462/1 ~/ <~ http://zx.fatal.ru/
Fido: 2:5057/21.93 /_ _> SkyNet: 71:170/21

VK> do you need it? write music better. In any case, the letters to the 2nd
VK> echo conference are clearly not enough to get people moving,

consider this the beginning of a large-scale campaign ;)

VK> so I advise you to forget about it and go about your direct
VK> responsibilities
VK> =)

that’s what I appreciate you for, JTN, is your ability to tactfully put anyone in their
place =)))

Tschau, Siril//4D.

...14 Sep 02 10:05:16, Zotov Sergey -> Vinogradov Ilya...
IV> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to the GPL?
SZ> you’re at the wrong time.

it’s time! honestly!

SZ> ms is going to do something with this license and
SZ> will not be able to use it.

Of course m$ is annoyed by this license, as well as the very existence of the Open
Software Foundation. After all, products distributed under GPL are real, more
reliable and safe (since source codes are available), and most importantly, they are often a _free_
alternative to crooked and expensive m$ products.
But it won’t do anything with the subj. in principle.
Firstly, the license itself is well thought out. And there are no legal
reasons to close it.
Secondly, the sublicense also has powerful lobbyists. Consider
the entire unix community (sun), IBM (which has delivered a lot on Linux),
developers of alternative Linux-based platforms, and in general, annoying companies.
In addition, it is very easy to accuse m$ of the fact that its attempts to cover up subj
contradict antitrust laws. (to which, if you remember, m$
is allergic =).

SZ> Linux will be the first to suffer, by the way.

Nevermind, too much is invested in Linux. most likely m$ will break its neck
on this adventure.

SZ> so I think that this proposal may become completelyridiculous in the future.
SZ> although the most pirated computer race are the Spectrumists ;)
SZ> CrackEmAll! =)

Don't worry, you won't be left without work ;)

Ppl! GPL - rulez!!! and a real buzz for spec!

Tschau, Siril//4D.

...14 Sep 02 11:09:00, Amosov Nikolaj -> Vinogradov Ilya...
IV> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to the GPL?
NA> At least explain what the GPL is?

>>Here it is:

What is “copyleft”?
(What Is Copyleft?)

>----------------------------------------------------------------
.About the origin of the term “copyleft”
.What is “copyleft”?
.GPL translations
>----------------------------------------------------------------

About the origin of the term "copyleft"
In documents devoted to the legal aspects of free
software, the term ``copyleft'' is widely used. This is a comic alteration of the well-known ``copyright'', which the translator risked conveying in Russian as ``copyright'' instead of
``copyright''. The origin of this term is described by Richard Stallman in the history of the GNU project.

>----------------------------------------------------------------

What is "copyleft"?
The simplest way to make a program free is to declare it public property, revoking your
copyright. This will allow others to share the program and its improvements if they wish. But opponents
cooperation is able to turn the program into
proprietary. They make changes, big or small, and distribute the result as a proprietary product.
Users of such a program lose the freedom that the author originally gave - it is stolen by an intermediary.
The goal of the GNU Project was to give all users the freedom to redistribute and modify GNU software. But if the intermediary takes away freedom, we can have many users, and these users will not have freedom. So instead of making GNU software public property, we subject it to ``copyleft''. The idea of ​​"copyleft" is that anyone who distributes a program, either with or without modifications, has no right to restrict the freedom of its further distribution or modification. "Copyleft" guarantees that each user is free in his actions.
Copyleft also encourages other programmers to add to the free software set. Many important free software, such as the GNU C++ compiler, exist solely because of this.
Copyleft also helps programmers who want to make improvements to free software obtain permission to do so. Such programmersoften work for companies or universities that do everything to earn more money. The programmer may want to donate his changes to the program to the community, and his employer may want to turn the modifications into a proprietary software product.
When we explain to an employer that it is forbidden to redistribute an improved version unless it is free software,
he usually decides to release it as free software rather than not release it at all.
To place a program under "copyleft"
(copyleft), we first declare our copyright on it
(copyright), then we add distribution conditions, which are
the legal basis, according to which everyone receives the rights
to use, modify and distribute the program code,
as well as any derivative programs, provided that the rules
distribution are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms offered become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use their copyrights to deny users their freedoms, and we use those same rights to guarantee those freedoms.
This is why we use the term ``copyleft'' as opposed to
``copyright''.
"Copyleft" is a general concept, there are many
ways to determine details. The specific distribution terms of the GNU Project are set forth in the GNU General Public License (20kB HTML or 18kB text) (GNU GPL).
Another form, the GNU Lesser General Public License (27kB HTML or
25kB text) (GNU LGPL), applies to some (but not all) GNU
libraries. This license was previously called the Library GPL, but we changed the name (Lesser General) because the old one encouraged using this license more often than it should. An explanation of the need for these changes can be found in the article "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library." The GNU Library General Public License (GNU Library General Public License, and its text version) also remains available, although it has been officially superseded by the other one mentioned above.
The GNU Free
Documentation License, and its text version, is intended for use in manuals, books, and other documents to provide everyone with the effective freedom to copy and distribute, with or without modification, for commercial purposes or not.
A corresponding license is included in many of the manuals
and in all originalGNU Project texts.
The GNU GPL is designed to be easy to apply to your own programs, as long as you own the copyright. You don't have to modify the GNU GPL to do this - just add a properly formulated reference to the GNU GPL to the program.
If you wish to copyleft your program using the GNU GPL, please read the instructions at the
end of the GPL text (20kB). If you intend to use the GNU
LGPL, see the instructions at the end of the LGPL text (27kB).
Using the same distribution conditions for
many different programs makes it easier to copy code from one
program to another. Since they all have the same conditions, there is no need to worry about their compatibility. Lesser GPL allows
to change the distribution terms to the regular GPL, so that you
can copy code into another program distributed under the
GPL.

>----------------------------------------------------------------

.GPL Translations
These translations are unofficial. Strictly speaking, only the original (English) version of the GPL defines the current distribution conditions for GNU programs.
The reason the FSF does not recognize these translations
as legally binding is that verifying them may be
difficult and costly (requiring the assistance of lawyers,speaking both languages). Moreover, if a bug does creep in, the consequences could be disastrous for the entire free software world. Since the translations are unofficial, they will not cause any harm, while we hope that they will help more people understand the GPL.

Tschau, Siril//4D.

Rolling my eyes wildly, I watch how 13-Sep-02 at 23:19:42 Ilya Vinogradov
wrote All about the GPL

IV> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to the GPL?

IV> Otherwise they’re all sitting in the corners with the source codes... doing nothing and others
IV> are not given

IV> How about changing the status of the source codes, for example, such programs as
IV> for example, Alasm, STS, ProTracker (happy exception! thanks
IV> AlCo!!!), NeOS and so on? (programs are really annoying) (besides
IV> most of the sources were obtained illegally).

IV> Maybe the transition to subj is the only remaining real
IV> opportunity to breathe new life into Speccy

Maybe I’m wrong, but, in my opinion, at the moment the most
self-justifying practice is either a “subscription program” or
freeware.

Just, please, don’t argue, okay? I do not claim to be right...

Sincerely, Vladimir.

13 Sep 02 23:19, Ilya Vinogradov wrote to All:

IV> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to the GPL?

I also once thought so. And now it seems to me more and more that
Microsoft is a great power, and Bill Gates is our dad... although of course
in reality everything is not like in reality.

The GPL certainly has some advantages over proprietary
programs,
but there are just as many disadvantages, if not more. In general, the main essence of the GPL is
that the program be free (free in English is both free and
free)
in this sense of the word, and not necessarily free, that is, so that it
can be freely
used and further developed. So the meaning of all kinds of freedom in the ex-USSR, and
even more so on the Spectrum, is completely lost. The legal issue here is of no interest to anyone
--
taiga law, prosecutor bear... The source code (example BGE) in the same form as
is
is the same disassembler.
The GPL also forces everyone who borrowed program code under the GPL to apply the GPL to their program. Is this good or what? On the one hand, everything seems to be just
wonderful,
they immediately cite Linux as an example. Yes, there is a lot of software, everyone does it. But
the quality of this software is determined by these random people - the fact that they made a natural Mazda out of Linux
at shock
pace (I mean not only the filevmlinuz)
for some reason
is kept silent. Widespread use of the GPL, precisely the part that forces the application
GPL
to new programs can be simply disastrous for the platform, the development
of which
will simply come to a dead end. However, it may be better this way than nothing at all.

IV> Otherwise they all sit in the corners with the source codes... do nothing and
IV> do not give it to others.

Well, there is no need for such statements. For example, there is BGE in the source code
, so what? Yes, you can’t figure it out without a bottle... even the author can’t figure it out
now. Whether it's a source code or a disassembler, the difference is small.
It was necessary to write documentation for the program, not to mention at least
comments...

IV> How about changing the status of source codes, for example, such programs as
IV> for example, Alasm, STS, ProTracker (a happy exception! thanks
IV> AlCo!!!), NeOS and so on?

From this list, only one may be needed STS.

IV> (troublesome programs actually).

Which ones?

IV> (besides, most of the sources were obtained illegally).

That’s why at least half of the GPL is meaningless in our country.

14 Sep 02 12:47, Ilya Vinogradov wrote to Vassili Klimov:

IV> consider this the beginning of a large-scale campaign ;)

It's too late. It was necessary to somehow force it while the new software for the speccy was coming out.
Now I don’t remember anything in the last six months except
the Vega jukebox.

14 Sep 02 10:05, Sergey Zotov wrote to Ilya Vinogradov:

SZ> you’re at the wrong time. ms is going to do something with this license and it
SZ> will not be able to be used.

Are you a new demo version of God from Microsoft? If not, then it means that if
Microsoft is going to do something there, then it is not at all necessary that this
will happen. Microsoft is always going to do something...

14 Sep 02 18:03, Ilya Vinogradov wrote to Sergey Zotov:

IV> Of course m$ is annoyed by this license, as well as the very existence of
IV> Open Software Foundation. After all, products distributed under GPL -

It’s not a fact that Microsoft and OSF are not from the same company.

SZ> you are at the wrong time. ms is going to do something with this license and it
SZ> will not be able to be used. Linux will be the first to suffer, by the way. so
SZ> I think that this proposal may become completely ridiculous in the future.
SZ> although the most pirated computer race is the Spectrumists
SZ> ;) CrackEmAll! =)

That's for sure!! :) Personally, I will honor the license only from a person
residing in a post in the Soviet space. Licenses from another part of the world
are strictly parallel to me.
I support the proposals. I don’t know if I will personally edit anything, but
it would be interesting to see.

With respect, Alexey.

14 Sep 02 18:03, Ilya Vinogradov wrote to Sergey Zotov:

IV> Ppl! GPL - rulez!!! and a real buzz for spec!
no, I don’t like it. Copyleft spreads like a virus.
so free sources - yes. GPL - no.

IV> that’s what I appreciate you for, JTN, is your ability to tactfully put
IV> anyone in their place =)))
does he give out the right toasts? ;)

- Alone Coder [ZX-Guide] [ACEdit] [PT] [Chip] [STS] [AlCoNews] [ANSI] [8col]

DB> no, I don't like it. Copyleft spreads according to the
DB> principle of a virus.
DB> so free sources - yes. GPL - no.

In general, free sources are of course good, but we should remember that even after
the release of the UFO 1.2 source code no one used them, and with the black
raven the same feature

so it’s not enough to have source codes, you also need to understand them, and for this the idea that popped up in one of the last zx-reviews could
help: standardization of names
tags, the author seems Serzh

so far open source has not contributed anything to Spec

[IronLord] Yurik aka Jerri / Alien Factory /I \
[No RAR allowed] [SoHm] [Conceptual Minimalism] \ZX/

16 Sep 02 19:54, Yuri Potapov wrote to Dima Bystrov:

YP> and so far open source has not contributed anything to Spec

IV>> Gentlemen, isn’t it time for the Spectrum community to switch to the GPL
IV>>?

SZ> You’re at the wrong time. ms is going to do something with this license and it cannot be
SZ> used. Linux will be the first to suffer, by the way. so I think that this
SZ> proposal may become completely ridiculous in the future. although the most pirated
SZ> computer race are the Spectrumists ;)
SZ> CrackEmAll! =)
Even if M$ manages to push through the corresponding legislation in the USA, then
America is not the whole world. But the whole world has not gone crazy yet. :) And it's worth switching to
GPL. Look, on sourceforge you can find not only offtopic
projects. :) How do you like, for example, sts.sourceforge.net, or, say,
bge.sourceforge.net? ;)

WBR, Sergei Dubarev

17 Sep 02 22:25, Dima Bystrov -> Yuri Potapov:

YP>> and so far open source has not contributed anything to Spec

DB> you forgot Melon and STS :)

More CDOS :).

/ps: did you get the soap?

With best wishes - Wlodek. * [] * mailto: wlblack(sign)chat.ru
http://wlodeks.boom.ru <[ZX]> * http://wlodek.newmail.ru
[500:95/462@ZXNet] [2:5016 Forever] [Golyanovo] [Radio 'Retro' 88.3 MHz]

20 Sep 02 18:42, Sergei Dubarev -> Sergey Zotov:
[skipped]

SZ>> you’re not on time. ms is going to do something with this license and it
SZ>> cannot be used. Linux will be the first to suffer, by the way. so

[skipped]

SD> Even if y M$ manages to push through the corresponding legislation in the
SD> USA, then America is not the whole world. But the whole world has not yet gone crazy. :)

I still can’t understand how something can be done
so that the subject license cannot be used.

Here is a man who wrote a program. He is its author, he has all the rights to this program.
How can some legislation prevent him from distributing this program in
the style of a GPL license?
That is. with sources and a license agreement, which states that when using
these sources, the resulting program must also be under the same license.

How can I do something here?
Prohibit the distribution of source codes? In this case, you will have to destroy all computer science textbooks. And at the same time we will have to prohibit m$ itself from distributing
MSDN. :)

Or prohibit distribution of programs? ;)

Or declare that the text of the “license” written in some file attached to the program is just a file and has no legal force? But what about the “license” in the form of a file for Windows? :)

IMHO, even in Lamerica it will not be possible to “ban”GPL".
Or they will ban it the same way they banned gambling in Greece - they could not
define gambling, and therefore they banned everything altogether :)

Aleksandr

SD>> legislation in the USA, then America is not the whole world. And the whole world has not gone crazy yet. :)
AM> I still can’t understand how something can be done,
AM> so that the subject license cannot be used.

America is a country of unlimited possibilities. ANYTHING is possible there...