Absolutely. But, conversely, if we (FSVO "we") want to think less of him for choosing that way, that's up to us. Not in general, but I think it does when the reason given for not releasing the source is that it enables (as in "makes easier") the creation of commercial competitors - and as that was one of the reasons given upthread, I think it's not an entirely unfair thing to say. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Because it's a choice which I believe does harm to the state of the art, making it a Bad Thing to do. If you count bias against people who do things which harm society as bigotry, then yes, I believe it's OK to be a bigot. (Whether this case is an example, that's a different question.) If you really believe that being non-FSF makes one strongly detrimental to society, I consider that a perfectly reasonable consequence. (I may disagree, of course, but that's a separate question.) Now, of course, if that hate gets translated into certain kinds of action, that may be a problem, but it's a separate problem. I don't hate Dave because-- well, actually, I don't hate Dave at all; I rather like Dave, even after this incident. I don't *think less of* Dave because he's white, or uses classic computers, or lives in Ontario; I think less of Dave because I think his software distribution policy choices contribute to holding back the state of the art. Here again, I see "it's his right to do that" being used as if it implied "it's not a bad thing for him to do that". As I explained in another message, I do not agree with that leap. Not especially. I'd disagree, of course, but I don't see anything unfair about it, any more than it's unfair to dislike me because I drink lots of milk, or drive a car, or shave my scalp, or play pool, assuming you feel similarly about everyone who drinks lots of milk, or drives a car, or etc. (BTW, of those four, I actually do only two; the others are hypothetical.) Yes, it would be. But I don't, not for any of the meanings of "expect" (though I'm somewhat unsure about the "consider reasonable or due" meaning). I just think less of those that don't. At least for a (relatively) few standards I consider important enough - basically, those from which I see harm to society proceeding. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but it is an erroneous impression. Oh, I let him. I'm in no position to prevent him, after all. But you seem to think that just because I censured him for it, that I think he doesn't have a right to do it (because you leapt from the one to the other). This too is wrong. I fully agree that he was/is within his rights to do as he did. That doesn't mean that I think what he did was good, or even was not deserving censure. See my reply to Roger. Most briefly, because I believe such choices hold back the state of the art, and thus harm society as a whole - at which point it becomes a moral issue. To me. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

I borrow this place to ask my question: What license should I use when I release my software? I used SimH code in my software, and sample code downloaded from internet that written by NCR for its 53C90 chip in the 1980's. I assume it is hard to find somebody in NCR who is responsive for the code. Then what license should I use? I have GPL in my mind. I haven't check whether it is compatible with SimH license or not. If needed, I can get rid of the NCR code and replace it with the NetBSD 53C90 code, so I care less of this part. Please give me some insight if somebody is familiar with the license issue. vax, 9000

It was thus said that the Great 9000 VAX once stated: Here's the license for SimH: Original code published in 1993-2005, written by Robert M Supnik Copyright (c) 1993-2005, Robert M Supnik Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL ROBERT M SUPNIK BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of Robert M Supnik shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from Robert M Supnik. Here's the one for NetBSD: /*- * Copyright (c) 2005 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * This code is derived from software contributed to The NetBSD Foundation * by * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the NetBSD * Foundation, Inc. and its contributors. * 4. Neither the name of The NetBSD Foundation nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED * TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR CONTRIBUTORS * BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */ (but note that some portions of NetBSD are covered by the GPL---but I think the kernel itself is the NetBSD license) So you're free to use both codebases, but the "Advertising clause" in the NetBSD license precludes it from being GPLed: Original BSD license (Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.) This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The link above does provide a list of licenses that one can release code under, but do keep in mind that it's biased towards the GPL 8-) Now, that said, the SimH code doesn't appear to be incompatible with the GPL, and with the uncertain status of the NCR code, I'm not sure if you can go with the GPL. Using the NetBSD drivers means you can't use the GPL. -spc (And Linux doesn't seem to have a NCR 53C90 driver ... )