Jamie Jones wrote:
I do see your point, but [...]
Do you believe that having GPL build scripts requires you to distribute
the source to the application ? If so you are quite mistaken. You only
need to distribute the source to the build scripts.
Most commercial vendors aren't interested in any requirements that they
have to distribute anything at all. Nor are they interested in tracking
their legal requirements for small snippets of code. The upshot is such
GPLed code simply won't get used, thereby defeating much of the purpose
of open source. Now, maybe you can provide sufficient dual licensing
assurances on your site to assuage the paranoia of all the managers out
there who automatically think negatively of anything with the GPL on
it. Or maybe you can't. Do your site, and we'll see if anyone uses it.
In the end, I think the only thing that we can agree on, is that we
agree to disagree.
Indeed. The basic schism between GPL and BSD proponents, is the former
are interested in using force to get their way, and the latter are
interested in what will actually get adopted in commercial practice.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
