RE: KDE vs. Gnome?

["Poletti, Don" <don poletti comverse-in com>]

> 
> And are you really not sure if the definitive free software license
> allows you to copy software licensed under it to other machines?

Actually I have a fine understanding. I'm asking questions
based on yours and other responses. Several people jumped on my
use of comercial. I used it in the sense of an you get charge per 
computer, not in the you can charge for distribution. My mistake
for not being more clear. But some of the resposes seem to indicate
that it could be charged this way so I asked so that the person
(in this case you) could clarify your response.

I try to find the most obserd example that fit someone's explanation
to see if it has holes. That does not mean I don't understand it a method
of communication.

> 
> No, it means the act of running the Program is not restricted.  That
> says nothing about adding additional restrictions to the license.

I guess I just don't speak legalese. So you can add any restrictions
except those that would restrict running it? 

> I don't understand this.  Can you elaborate on what are you trying to
> accomplish, and why?

I'm not trying to accomplish anything just try to undertand the
different nuances of the different licences. 

> > 
> > Yep funny how the open source community can ignore things they 
> > don't like. The FSF should really sue the KDE people
> 
> The FSF has no say in the matter.  There is no FSF-copyrighted code in
> KDE (AFAIK).
> 

The FSF would have a say if a KDE program used GPL code from a source
that the FSF held the rights to. I bet there's a few. I don't really
want anyone sued I just want the licence mess cleared up. For my part
I don't use and KDE software.