Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I have a suspicion that most people that publish their programs >> under the GPL use the GPL only because it's the license they've >> heard of the most, without really considering all the implications. >> I'd like to see a bit more of a discussion on these matters, so >> people would realize that the GPL perhaps isn't as "free" as it's >> advocates want it to look like. > > I have a strong feeling that this used to be the case, three years > ago. But no more. I believe that nowadays, people writing free > software are aware of the implications of their choice,
I thought the exact implications were subject to considerable controversy. > and they choose the GPL willingly, knowingly and deliberately. > There have been numerous articles published both for and against the > GPL, and I think most software authors have read at least one of > them. I'm pretty sure people do read the GPL before using it for > their programs, and I trust them to understand what it says. Is there such a thing as understanding a legal document? It's easy to fall into the trap of believing everyday, sensible logic would be apply in legal matters. Unfortunately, it doesn't. > Especially when it's the subject of many controversies and FUD. > > Now your argument about what constitutes a derived work is worthy of > consideration. Does anyone have any pointers to previous discussions on that matter? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
