On 05/12/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set > out > > in the charter. > > I strongly hope that the BBC will not contribute to the problem of > license proliferation.
Why is "license proliferation" a problem? The more licenses, the more choices you and I have as developers about the terms and conditions we wish to license software under. Don't Like the GPL? try BSD. Doesn't suite you either? As I can't afford a lawyer to draft me my own license I'll just have to try the apache license to see if it meets my needs etc. etc. Now I might be able to add the BBC license to that list. > As an aside I still don't understand the need for GPLv3, as far as I can > it > > just adds confusion and is actually LESS free than GPLv2 (this isn't > meant > > to be trolling or flamebait, just a personal opinion). > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html explains. I've read that page a number of times previously, it doesn't counter any of my queries or objections to GPLv3. For example, the perceived problem of "tivoisation" runs counter to the first freedom "the freedom to use software for any purpose". Do TIVO (or indeed other companies) not share that right? Vijay.
