vijay chopra wrote: > To the person who said GPLv3 is more idealistic: having reflected on it > over night, I've realised that my position is in fact more idealistic > than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more > idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive.
I think rather than 'more idealistic' it's better to say that your ideals differ *a little*. IMH(umble)O: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. I wonder if, rather like racism and feminism, has the tide turned enough so that we can compromise on the hearts and minds? Or do we still need positive discrimination? David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
