* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [30.06.08 10:48]: > The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this > is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of > software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software. > The main point is that this also disallows the usage within NonOSS software. That's what counts. Many OSS licenses do not care about later closed usage, and so one backdoor is closed, where GPL code may become unfree. For me, some of the so called OSS licenses undermine the freedom and I don't want them to be spread anymore. BSD is the one license where freedom goes the step to far and is suicide.
> Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does > not > care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF > projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other > projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to > GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been > put under GPL by the author. > That's not a problem of the GPL, but of the FSF. You can't blame the GPL for that. And I'm just curious: under which license was that code, which is now in vcdimager? > > > And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in > > closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral > > and supposed non-free issue. > > If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS > as done by the GPL. > This is a all or nothing matter, or you end up categorizing every single license if it fits. <overstatement> And remember the GPL is a virus, that wants world domination. </overstatement> > > > But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the > > license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it > > requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. > > You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the > USA, "minor contributors" are not given the right to decide on this. > Well, in which crude copyright law is this stated? link please. I think it is more a problem of the enforcement, not the laws itself. If you do not fight for your right, you loose it. But I agree, that in our society, it is a matter of money. But that is a problem in society. > > So changing a license is always cumbersome. > > Then you should be against the GPL as many GPL people take BSD code > and illegally add GPL tags. This may be tolerated by the authors but it is > still forbidden by law. > That is *again* not an issue of the GPL but of the authors, s.o., and the licences changers. It's a people problem. And an issue of the BSD license: I'm not quite sure, but can't you do anything with source code under BSD licences, as long this infamous copyright notice stays? What can happen to BSD code is shown with Kerberos, which ended up in Active Directory with some uncompatiple changes and some really lousy, security short commings. > Jörg > When it is free, than it shall be free from here to eternity. Sebastian -- " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp3rhDg4HE56.pgp
Description: PGP signature
