Uhh, Licensing discussion breaks out on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Film at
Eleven.
Everything in this article is old news, rehashed many times to death in
public places like LKML or /. There is not a single new word in it. So
please let it rest.
It is IMHO freedom when every software author can choose the license
that he wants for the code that he wrote. If people want GPL, fine. If
they want BSD, fine with me, too. If they want to make money from their
closed source stuff, well, go ahead. We all must eat.
Put please keep this out of lists like this. I'd say that most people
are sick and tired to hear the same old arguments rehashed over and over
again by people with too much emotions and ideology and no idea that all
their arguments have been discussed over and over again since at least
ten years.
I'm still waiting for the day when anyone will throw a _new_ angle into
this discussion. The last somewhat new angle that I percepted was the
"table dancing license" from Microsoft AKA "shared source" (You can
watch it but you must not touch it. Unless you bring a big wad of cash).
Regards
Henning
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 20:12, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> http://www.freewebs.com/sepero/index.html
>
> The author says:
> "
> Notice: Please do not waste your time reading this if you care nothing
> about the promotion of OSS and it's community! This document is for the
> advancement of OSS, not just the contribution to it. If after reading
> this, you still consider BSD more beneficial to OSS than GNU, please
> have at least READ their software licenses before contacting me.
> "
>
> *sigh*
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
