Alexandre Oliva wrote:
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
That is just not true.
Agreed. It's just better for everyone involved in the cooperation
than permissive licenses.
No it isn't. There is never a down side to permitting additional uses.
They never reduce the possibilities for the original work.
To understand why, have a look at
http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf
Your scenarios have nothing to do with real-world possibilities. You
need to permute your license cost chart for all possible recombinations
of code components and note the places where you can't even make an
entry. Imagine if the reference TCP implementation had been GPL'd and
no commercial systems used it because of the restrictive license. We'd
still be struggling to make any two different systems communicate today.
Again, the fact that under certain restricted conditions it may be
possible to reuse the code does not eliminate the damage caused by the
restrictions that prevent many other uses.
/me refers to the 1-month-ago thread on fedora-devel in which I
thought it had become clear that GPL didn't impose any such
restrictions, it was copyright law that did.
That's equally true and equally irrelevant, for those proprietary
licenses that you don't like, so its not much of an argument, especially
from you. Saying that the GPL is better than a sharp stick in the eye
still doesn't make it a good thing.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
