On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:57:43PM +0200, Enno Gottox Boland wrote: > > Define abuse? According to MIT/BSD, using the code in closed source > > products is not abuse, it's simply use. Since that does not in any way > > affect the freedom of the original MIT/BSD licensed code, it shouldn't > > be a problem. Unless, of course, you want to restrict the users of > > your code in what they can and can't do with it. If you want that, > > fine, that's your choice, but please don't try to sell it as > > "freedom", since that's simply not what it is. > > Right. I like the GPL more than MIT, but I think giving others the > ability to change something without releasing its source is not abuse. > If I use MIT for a license, I have to accept that people will change > the license.
Only the copyright holder can change the license, ever. Plus, if you're concerned about the future, once you got something under a certain license, it will stay there forever, no matter what the copyright holder does. >There is not only the GPL meaning of freedom. > > > -- > http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro > http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy) > >
