On Friday 12 October 2007 10:40, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > [snip] > and the other side of the coin: if you release under the BSD license, > you may not get all the code that is developed modifying your code - > but you *will* get a substantial portion of it. And you can use all > you get in developing your own proprietary modules. If you GPL it, a > large number of people wont even touch it - so though you get *all* > the code modifying your code, it may not be much. One relies on the > choice of the modifier - the other relies on obligation/compulsion. > It's your choice depending on the model you wish to follow in > developing your thing. Compare the development cycle of mysql with > postgresql - mysql cannot accept a patch unless the copyright is > assigned to them (they pay for it of course), which restricts > severely the number of contributions they get - postgresql can accept > anything. Which is why the BSD license is considered a really free > license whereas the GPL is considered restrictive.
The MySQL copyright requirement is hardly representative of all software developed under the GPL, so I'm not even going to start rebutting your irrelevant examples. However,... Since we're totally into assumption- and opinion-land here, I'm out of this discussion. Vi vs Emacs, anyone? Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ Freedom in Technology & Software || September 2007 || http://freed.in/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - September 28-29, 2007 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
