On November 23, 2004 08:44 pm, Niels Voll wrote: > Not sure if you noticed - I didn't make a case for or against the GPL or > BSD style licensing - I was just trying to say, that forking is not a > consequence of licensing. > > Come to think of it, I think the whole argument GPL vs. BSD may be a bit > of a waste of energy. I think they both have their place (just like > closed source needs to stick around to a degree). Plurality is good ! > > Isn't it much more important to discuss for example the implications of > software patents rather than to have sibling squabbles between BSD and GPL? >
I can see a definite need to be clearer in my thought processes. What I really meant was the effects of forking. With a GPL project, forks may be possible, but the contributors are what make the project a success. If both flourish then wonderful, but I think that history shows that one branch or the other will more successful. The important thing is that noone can make one branch private, support it with lots of money/power make it popular and essentially hijack the project permanently with all the dangers that that implies. In an ideal world, software infrastructure (authentication protocols, communication protocols, OS's, etc.) would not be able to be controlled by one entity or group whose purpose is to limit the power of others to interoperate with their software (did you hear that MS?). There are so many reasons that this is a good thing that I cannot name them all! In my mind the best way to do that is to use a licence that limits the power of any one entity to restrict access to the code. That's the GPL! _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
