On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:22:28AM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > Everyone: maybe we can stop the GPL portion of this discussion since it > has been hashed out many times elsewhere. Perhaps you can agree that: > > - BSD or similar licenses are more free for people other than the > - copyright owner to use the software any way they want. Thus, it ends up > - being more easy to incorporate, including by closed-source products. > > - GPL forces more software overall to become GPL due to its viral nature. > - This may result in there being more open source software available > - overall, but with the limited freedom of the GPL. > > Both have their advantages and disadvantages. True, and sorry that I respond, since it's quite off-topic now, however I can't resist to mention one thing: it is often said that GPL is less free, it has "limited freedom". No, I see the opposite way: for me BDSL is less free because it can't guarantee the creator's freedom: I would choose GPL since I don't want others to use my code in non-free (or other licensed produect): I want my freedom to see my code works and receiving other's modifications, extensions to be available for me, and everyone, so it's for everyone freedom. At the other hand, for example BSDL can't make this, in my eye, that license is simply not free enough since it makes possible to "close" my code: no freedom anymore then for me, and for others who would be interested in that code which uses my one. So it is just matter of definition of "freedom" and "whose freedom" exactly :) In my eye, GPL is cool since it want to create some free software world, as it expects the return of modified things: this is the fair deal. But it is more or less what you've written too. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2011-10-28 07:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.