Eric Auer said: >Hi, a bit of clarification: >For small projects, I do not care. So I place them into public domain. >For bigger projects I prefer GPL because it protects the sources, keeping > them OPEN and FREE. >If I had to use another license, I would prefer a shorter one, as > explained, and one with an "anti military/... use" clause. >I do not think that using non-open exepackers or compilers does violate GPL.
[ Note: I'm kicking my reply on your topic back over to freedos-devel from freedos-kernel, since I think that's where the topic should have been placed originally, and it follows the parallel discussion already here. ] Baldly put, your this argument sounds like the worst of RIAA's with less cause. The idea that lack of a license limiting software usage somehow damages, weakens, harms or makes a copy of source code less free is nothing short of ludicrous. Simply put, any code which has a restricting license whatsoever is always less open or free than public domain to everyone for everyone. Or do we need to now debate the meaning of open and free? The only difference with PD over licensed is that more people can use the PD code. Some subset of those extra people (and that subset is probably a lot smaller than you think) will be those you may not like. Frankly, a nasty little secret about open source is that GPL and other such licenses are a weak lock. Ideas cannot be protected by law, with very specific exceptions provide by patents -- almost never an issue in these matters and definitely not an issue here. So Evil Corporation or Bad Guy could enjoy the fruits of a lot of licensed code effort just by sifting through the code for its best ideas and algorithms, then writing out those ideas in their own programmers' style and form. Perfectly legal. Don't be fooled by those who say good ideas are a dime a dozen. Good ideas are frequently worth a lot of money. And as far as lifting the actual code, well, unfortunately for those who think licenses offer good protection against direct theft, I can tell you that competent and reasonably talented programmers -- of which I am one along with others on this list, not to mention an easy million off-list -- who are so motivated could take existing source code and mask, tweak, and otherwise modify it sufficiently to protect it against almost any legal challenge of copyright infringement decided by judges or juries. Not that legal challenges would likely be forthcoming in the vast majority of cases, even were there a legion of Compliance Engineers. Lastly, while I understand why a lot of people don't want military use of licensed code, it's probably too vague and idealistic a concept to work well in the real world, notwithstanding licenses that have been out there for over ten years which try to do exactly that. I'll not spend the extra paragraphs on this list explaining in detail why it's not a terribly realistic restriction since we are again beginning to wander far afield of the list's purpose. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
