> While the GPL (any version) is not a trivial license, any hacker > who is capable of writting a non-trivial program should be able > to grasp it in an hour.
Perhaps "should", but they don't. Probobly for the same reason they don't write well written programs... ;-) > Still, it is a easy license compared to most other licenses, and > the general ideas are easily grasped by the four freedoms of free > software. Compared to most other licences? I'm not sure about that. It's more complex than most BSD-like and Apache-style licences, which are a significant proportion of "other". I suppose that is what I get for being vauge, by most other licenses, I was refering to non-free software licenses. > Not everyone agrees that the right to see software source on > someone else's machine you're using is a free software right; > I'm not particularly sure I do. > > I think that this is no different than a machine that I own that > prohibits me from upgrading it. Whereas I think it's no different to using a shell on a shared server. Well, then I can only assume that you think what Tivio did is ok? Since that is one way to look at it, a hardware with a shell that the company is providing access to. > That's a shame if it's not, they did build in a clause to make it > compatible: > > "You may also choose to redistribute modified versions of > this program under any version of the Free Software > Foundation's GNU General Public License version 3 or > higher, so long as that version of the GNU GPL includes > terms and conditions substantially equivalent to those of > this license." Scratch what I wrote after this, I thought this was from the GPLv3... _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
