--> You are now talking on #abiword
--- Topic for #abiword is  Welcome to #abiword | http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/dict/introduction.html - the grammar check candidate that we can use | lxr @ http://www.abisource.com/lxr/source
--- Topic for #abiword set by Guy3 at Wed Mar  6 18:35:05
<Guy1> Guy2: thanks. I just resent it
<Guy1> we can't use the grammar checker on topic
<Guy2> Guy1: yes we can
<Guy1> Guy2: has it changed to a free license since last I saw it?
<Guy2> Guy1: we aren't a commercial entity with intent to profit from their grammar checker
<Guy1> Guy2: because it has pretty incompatible terms
<Guy2> Guy1: see my comments in LinkGrammarChecker.cpp
<Guy1> extern "C" {
<Guy1> #include "link-includes.h"
<Guy1> }
<Guy1> Guy2: what comments where?
<Guy3> Feels like I hit somewhere between 10 and 20 Bugzilla changes - but Open/Submitted has dropped to under 550 :)
<Guy2> you probably need to cvs update dude
<Guy1> oh
<Guy2> Guy3: nice!
<Guy1> Guy2: however, it is incompatible and can't be used.
<Guy2> Guy1: it isn't incompatible, and i will use it
<Guy1> Guy2: it breaks the first freeGuy2 of free software.
<Guy3> Guy1: It can be used - maybe not distributed as compiled binary :)
<Guy2> Guy1: besides, jared is talking to them now. they are thinking of dual licensing their code (under the GPL)
<Guy1> Guy3: it can't be used with the gnu gpl
<Guy1> Guy2: IF they do that, we can use it.
<Guy2> Guy1: it can be used. their license permits me to use it
<Guy1> for the current time being no
<Guy2> if their license permits me to use it, then i can use it
<Guy1> Guy2: that's beyond the point.
<Guy3> Guy1:  Won't wash - we use GNU with MSCVRT.DLL all the time.
<Guy1> Guy2: the license does not permit that.
<Guy2> we use GPL abiword on top of Windows DLLs and Header files
<Guy1> we have a problem probably.
<Guy2> we use GPL abiword on top of libjpeg and imagemagick, neither of which are GPL
<Guy2> i don't see the problem
<Guy3> If GNU is only on/for GNU is will be dead.  
<Guy2> if there is a problem, then *everyone* has a problem
<Guy3> s/GNU/GPL
<Guy3> zlib != GNU we use it all over the place.
<Guy3> s/GNU/GPL
<Guy3> damn keyboard :)
<Guy2> we also use LGPL'd code from time to time too ;-)
<Guy2> if link was to use OUR code, then there would be a problem
<Guy2> if we link against link's code, there is NO problem
<Guy2> the only way it becomes wrong for us to use their code is if we start shipping abiword commercially WITH their grammar checker
<Guy1> we can link with software with gpl compatible license.
<Guy2> we can link with anything we choose to
<Guy1> Guy2: and that breaks freedom 0 of free software. then why are we using gpl at all?
<Guy2> we use the GPL because we want abiword's sources to be free, not link grammar checker's source to be free
<Guy1> Guy2: yes.
<Guy1> Guy2: but it the plugin is linking non free code with free code. which can't be done with the GNU GPL.
<Guy3> Guy1:  I don't get it.  MS libraries are not "GPL compatible" - but we link with them to operate under Windows - I would hate to think I can run GPL software just cause I am running Windows.
<Guy3> s/can/can't
<Guy1> Guy3: I didn't know it woked like that
<Guy2> yes it does work like that
<Guy1> that may be a problem
<Guy2> i can't link a proprietary plugin into my GPL source. i can link my GPL plugin against propreitary sources
<Guy3> Guy1: It has too.  cygwin does it.  
<Guy2> notice the (subtle) difference
<Guy1> Guy2: I know.
<Guy1> Guy2: but that is not gpl any more.
<Guy2> cygwin, mozilla, openoffice
<Guy2> my code is released under the GPL
<Guy2> the header files that i used aren't
<Guy1> Guy2: it is gpl+exception clause (and you have to state it officially)
<Guy1> I am not sure if it is compatbile.
<Guy1> openoffice is not free software as it depends on proprietary libraries (at least one which I can't recall the name) but they are making an effor to substitute them
<Guy3> That wall is getting closer
<Guy2> i've released my code under the gnu gpl. abiword is released under the gnu gpl. gpl->gpl
<Guy2> so are you saying that i have no right to release my code under the GPL because i used some header file that wasn't GPL?
<Guy2> i think not
<Guy1> Guy2: that's not what I am saying.
<Guy2> then what ARE you saying?
<Guy1> Guy2: what I am saying is that that library can't be used because it is incompatible.
<Guy3> Guy1:  Again it won't jive.
<Guy2> the library can be used, and will be used. we link against win32 dlls. we link against cocoa dylibs. we link against BeOS and QNX so's. none of those are GPL
<Guy2> so now we've just lost all of our ports except unix/gnome. thanks a lot
* Guy2 goes cvs rm'ing the whole tree
<Guy3> Guy1:  BSD are not GPL but they link their libraries with GPL code all the time.
<Guy3> so GPL code will work on the OS.
<Guy1> Guy3: it's not only gpl code that can link with gpl, ok? :)
<Guy2> oh, and only on linux, mind you. BSD, Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX can go fuck themselves
<Guy2> so now abiword only runs on linux. if anyone else downloads it, i'll store their IP address in a file and then come to arrest them
<Guy4> As a nonlinux user I would find that.. inconvenient
<Guy3> "GPL compatible" to link against then means?
<Guy1> The modified BSD license is compatible.
<Guy2> QNX, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, Win32, BeOs, MacOSX are not GPL compatible either
<Guy2> yet it's fine that we release software that builds upon those kernels/libc's/graphics systems
<Guy3> Oh man - we can run CVS on FreeBSD - so no CVS, no website, I am confused.
<Guy2> NOOOO!!!
* Guy2 switches over to bitkeeper
<Guy2> problem averted, thank god
<Guy2> wait a sec - i just got sourceoffsite and sourcesafe. lemme go try those out
<Guy3> BSD = compatible - why?
<Guy1> Guy2: I do not say that it isn't nice.
<Guy3> Guy2:  I hate you 
<Guy1> Guy3: the modified bsd is.
* Guy2 smooches Guy3
* Guy2 opens up a port to share his drive over a network
<Guy3> sourceoffsite/sourcesafe - I just don't like.
<Guy1> The modified BSD license.
<Guy1>     (Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
<Guy1>     This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
<Guy1>     If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
<Guy2> C:\ is now world readable/writable
<Guy4> : prefers the BSD license. :)
<Guy1> Guy3: understood? :)
<tucker> Guy4: Playing MUDs a lot?
<Guy3> Guy1: still attempting to decipher.
<Guy4> ost of my talker timeis on handbuilt system that uses hybrid IRC and M* commands. Tnhe M* commands are shorter. :)
<Guy2> your point is still moot
<Guy1> Guy2: I will consult with people who is more experienced about this linkage stuff, but I am pretty sure I am correct, but maybe not explaining well enough.
<Guy3> Guy1: If the price to be GPL is not to have it work under Windows - GPL isn't worth it.
<Guy1> Guy2: it would be really nice, however, if the authros dual license it as gpl too.
<Guy2> Guy1: i'm quite sure that i'm correct. if i'm wrong, the *WHOLE* free software community must fall down
<Guy2> Guy1: it would be nice if they dual-licensed the code, yes
<Guy1> Guy3: the cost (not money) of using windows isn't worth it :)
 Guy2 daz 
<Guy1> Guy2: no.
<Guy3> Guy1:  Yes - but you are still outvoted 10,000,000 to 1.
* Guy1 asks if he can send this conversation with names substituted by aliases?
<Guy2> Guy1: ok, so then none of our software can ever run on windows, hpux, qnx, aix, or some bsds
<Guy1> Guy3: I remove all my contributions from cvs.
<Guy2> Guy1: if you remove them, i revert your changes and remove your cvs access. no need to get pissy
<Guy2> you licensed your code under the GPL. no way to take it back now. it's public record and public source
<Guy1> Guy2: that phrase was meant as a call to attention.
<Guy3> Guy1:  It's GPL - it owned by the world.
<Guy1> Guy3: not owned by noone, actually :)
<Guy4> GIMP is GPL, yes?
<Guy2> yes it is
<Guy1> Guy2: I am not pissed.
<Guy3> Guy1: point taken.  
<Guy2> GPL code can be owned by particular people, actually. i own the copyright and license on wv, for instance
<Guy3> Guy1:  GPL code is GPL code so that I can do what I want with it.  And if I redistribute - I provide source.  Reading more into it isn't worth it.
<Guy1> Guy2: _anyone_ can pick a copy of wv, rename, and fork.
<Guy2> as holder of the license, i am able to relicense it as i feel fit. Abi's copyrights aren't assigned to any one particular person, so therefore each bit is owned by its respective autoher
<Guy1> Guy3: do not confuse gpl with public Guy2ain.
--> mg (~a0ut@24.98.8.241) has joined #abiword
<Guy1> Guy2: but you can't relicense any gpl wv out there
<Guy2> Guy1: i'm free to do what i wish with my copyright. it's my right as a copyright holder
<Guy1> Guy2: not owned, there is copyrights on them.
<Guy3> Guy1: I'm not - public Guy2ain means I don't have to distribute my mods to the source.
<Guy2> Guy1: Then the "Copyright 2002 Dom Lachowicz" is meaningless then? hardly...
<Guy1> Guy2: no.
<Guy3> Guy1: Guy2 can change GPL license to wv on a whim - others who have a copy can-not.
<Guy5> Guy2: I have a short letter to paste (old, regarding grammar check).  Am i gonna get kicked?  or #flood?
<Guy1> Guy2: but the gpl is an unilateral grant of permision to (bla bla) as long as certain requirements are fulfilled.
<Guy2> Guy5: #flood, not kicked by me
<Guy4> The GPL is a license fvor code use, it does not assign copyright to any particular entity
<Guy2> Guy1: so are my other copyrights. i can reassign copyright as i see fit since i own it
<Guy5> Guy2: Guy1: aikEat: you might be interested in it.
<Guy3> Guy4: Good point.
<Guy1> Guy5:  shoot. but I have little time, I have to go have dinner.
<Guy5> #flood
<Guy3> Man that wall hurt!
<Guy2> Guy1: that's why GNU and FSF want you to assign copyright to THEM
<Guy1> AGAIN: can I send this conversation with names substituted by aliases?
<Guy2> yes
<Guy2> but you have to have everyone's approval in order to do it
<Guy1> that's why I am asking :)
<Guy1> btw, Guy5's mail is pretty nice.
<Guy1>  I
<Guy1> <Guy5> would like to work with you, but only on the condition
<Guy1> <Guy5> that the grammar checker is released under the X11 License or the BSD
<Guy5> ??
<Guy1> X11 is compatible with the gnu gpl.
<Guy2> i didn't get his mail
<Guy5> Guy2: #flood
<Guy1> if the link authors would release in any of the gpl compatible licenses all would be fine.
<Guy1> Guy2: yeah, he said it at least twice I think.
<Guy5> Guy1: read the last part about gpl
<Guy1> Guy5: where
<Guy2> he didn't say "join #flood"
<Guy1> last call!
<Guy1> Guy2: lol
<Guy1> does anyone want not only anonimousity but also removal of his comments?
<Guy1> 5
<Kian> hello
<Guy1> 4
<Guy1> 3
<Guy2> hi Kian
<Guy1> 2
<Guy1> 1
<Guy3> hi Kian
<Guy1> I have to go. taxi's waiting. I'll be back soon.