On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > It may also be the "patent clause". I personally am opposed to software > patents (especially the farce they are today), but I suspect the patent > clause is as much of a reason as is the anti-tivoization clause. > > It could be so.
The patent clause is an issue to some projects. OpenBSD has avoided the Apache license (2.0) for similar reasons. I personally favor the patent clause. > > Either way, I think it means that they are operating as part of a > system that threatens our freedom, and what they dislike about the > GPL3 is that it resists in an effective way. > I would agree with this statement. We (BSD folks) are part of that system in the sense that we allow it to operate. It is considered a good thing to us that anyone can use our source code for any purpose provided credit is given in the source (which may not be publicly visible). Some of the BSD projects are used in commercial products like routers, set top boxes and so forth; those companies avoid the GPL and they finance the FreeBSD foundation, etc. There's a conflict of interest in providing "Free" software for those projects. Not all BSD developers have issue with the GPL. For instance, MirBSD developers work on Debian as well. Lucas Holt [email protected] ________________________________________________________ MidnightBSD.org (Free OS) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
