Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication

phil hunt philh at invalid.email.address
Fri Nov 7 19:38:03 CET 2003


On 7 Nov 2003 03:55:56 -0800, Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.net> wrote:
>philh at invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbql2h8.5cb.philh at cabalamat.cabalamat.org>...
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:23:25 +0000, Richie Hindle <richie at entrian.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
>> >free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction. 
>> 
>> Not at all. The website says:
>> 
>> ==================================================================
>> We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel 
>> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL 
>> version and the normal commercial version.
>
>Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
>with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
>source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
>whether the developers have misinterpreted the GPL or are trying to
>layer their own incompatible stipulations on top.
>
>> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore 
>> you would need to take out a support subscription.
>> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.
>
>You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
>was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
>sentence?
>
>[Rest of notice cut]
>
>> There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After 
>> all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to 
>> be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say 
>> that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.
>
>Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth",

Absolutely.

> or is it just
>downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
>allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
>ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
>mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

No. AFAICT, it never makes two statements of the forms X and not-X.

-- 
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than 
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <zen20000 at zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse 
the last two letters).  






More information about the Python-list mailing list