Jared:
What's the scope, how are link's authors reacting to your email?
I would point out that they will have a greater leverage agains abuse
of their work on link if they release it under the GNU GPL rather than
many other free licenses:
Why:
* their license clearly gives a sign that they are worried about
proprietary solutions. I believe that it's once again the common
mistake of thinking that free software is not commercial, and thus
confusing proprietary with commercial.
* as the sole authors of link, they can decide to provide a
proprietary license for some amount of money, or other
compensation, to those who would like to use link in a
proprietary program, and generally releasing link with the software
freedom.
* if link's GPL, then no one can legally make proprietary software
and exploit all their hard work! Whoever wants to do so, would have
to ask them for a proprietary software license JUST THE SAME AS
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO NOW!
* The bonus of link being GPL: we can use it freely.
Hugs, rms
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
+ So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
