Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/xv/xv-3.10a.tar.gz
> >
> > Location of source. It isn't open in the sense of GPL/BSD/Artistic, BUT
> > the source is available and that puts it a cut above commercial
> > software.
>
> In the practical way, yes.
>
> In the theorical way, no: the first freedom of the GPL, the freedom to
> redistribute bugfixed versions, is prohibited.
>
> This license is the same as Sun Community License, or the license for
> Yast2. You can look, you can't touch.
Hey, I said I didn't want to get into a license war. :o)
My main point was that being non-GPL should not be a bar from the main
distribution if the program is useful or desired. I'm all for educating
or promoting more open licenses from commercial developers and I think
this guy is half-way there. So instead of "punishing" him, we should
encourage him to change the license. Maybe he's working now and doesn't
need the income? Bitching about his license gets us nowhere.
> > I don't begrudge the guy the right to sell his efforts, but at least
> > give him credit for supplying the source code along with it.
>
> That credit is 100% provided by the GPL. We at MandrakeSoft license under
> the GPL *and* sell our efforts.
One of the reasons that I personally appreciate Mandrake and other
vendors who do this. Perhaps the reasons that Mandrake does this will
also encourage him the same way, it's worked for others (i.e. Troll's
QT).
John
