License (was Re: Passing nmh maintenance to someone else)
Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Richard, what about the copyright? Do you want to keep it? I would prefer that it stay under a BSD -style license (as it currently is). But I'm not too concerned about the details. Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer that over, say, the GPL? --- Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please [EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address Unitech Research, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
Re: License (was Re: Passing nmh maintenance to someone else)
I take it you have never given the GPL to a lawyer to read? They go apeshit. They _really really_ don't like it. and this is an argument against GPL??? "Depends on how you look at it". But it _is_ an argument as to why it would make NMH less likely to be picked up by commercial Unix vendors, and that was the original argument. Of course they don't like it. GPL is a virus. It infects all other software it touches. In order to use it, you have to GPL the rest of your code. That's why they don't like it and it's also why other folks do like it. It all depends on what "ownership" you claim for the software you want to bundle it with. Let's not only lump lawyers in with the "they don't like it class" ... _I_ don't like it either, for slightly different reasons. I don't mind if someone else incorporates my software into a commercial product (I also am not a fan of the infectious nature of the GPL, but I digress). Some other people do. That's fine; there are different license styles for each case. But saying something like, "The GPL doesn't inhibit the bundling of software package X with a commercial operating system" is _completely_ naive. --Ken
Re: License (was Re: Passing nmh maintenance to someone else)
On April 6, 1999 at 16:05, Ken Hornstein wrote: But saying something like, "The GPL doesn't inhibit the bundling of software package X with a commercial operating system" is _completely_ naive. It depends on what is meant by "bundling". If refering to linking or mixture of source code, yes, one has to be careful if the intergration is with software that is under a non-GPL, or compatible, license. If you take a GPL application on its own, there is no problem. For example, Netscape Communicator includes Movemail in its Unix version. Movemail is a GPL program, and we know that Netscape Communicator is a non-GPL application. Also, do a search for "GNU" and www.sun.com. You'll see Sun mixing GNU software used within commercial products. What is _completely_ naive is that GPL software cannot co-exist with non-GPL software. I suggest any other general discussions about GPL, and licensing, be moved to gnu.misc.discuss, or other appropriate forum. --ewh Earl Hood | University of California: Irvine [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Electronic Loiterer http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/ | Dabbler of SGML/WWW/Perl/MIME
