> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael C. Robinson [mailto:plu...@robinson-west.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 2:35 AM > To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Basic networking abilities > > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 04:12 +0200, japhethx gmail wrote: > > > [snip] I think > > > everybody has learned the last years that GPL software > can be used > > > without any second thoughts and distributed freely.[snip] > > > > No. > > Yes, that's a huge strong point. As long as you provide > access to the complete source code, for a fee to cover > copying/transmission or gratis is irrelevant. > > > > I am also a real fan of the Free Software idea. Otherwise > I wouldn't > > > use FreeDOS (which is released under the GPL as well). Some > > > developers may not be too happy about the license choice, > especially > > > those who would like to grab your code and try to make > money from it > > > by making it part of an unfree software. But who cares > about them? I > > > think the GPL is about having fun, about trust and fairness and > > > about learning from others and alllowing others to participate. > > > > Thanks for your enthusiasm and propaganda! > > > > GPL is a valid license that has its pros and cons. > Personally, I don't > > like it. One reason for this is because it sounds like a political > > manifesto, which > > - IMO - insults the readers intelligence. > > > > Just my opinion :)). > > Is there a software license open source or not that DOESN'T > limit you in some way? Can a software license not be > political? What's really driving this anti-GPL commentary? > Sure, you can't hide changes that you make to open source > software under the GPL. Why does the GPL exist? > Simple, Microsoft is an unchallenged monopoly. The only > serious alternative that exists to Windows is open source > software. No closed source commercial endeavor can get off > the ground. If you like Windows, there is ReactOS. This is > a GPL based project that has a ways to go, but I suppose it > is somewhat interesting. The GPL is not always convenient, > but would you pay for Freedos 1.1 say $100+ if it wasn't > free? The answer is clearly no. Freedos will always be > free, give or take a sharing fee. GPL software can be fixed > even if the original author dies or loses interest in it. > With closed source software, this isn't the case at all. > With most software these days being old software that needs > to be maintained, open source often makes more sense than > closed source.
I think his point is that even the GPL can be too restrictive for some people's tastes. There are other, less-restrictive licenses such as Apache. When I do some code, I normally put essentially a public-domain license that says "you can do anything you want with my code". I don't expect that anybody will be making money with it, but if they do, that's fine with me. The won't be able to patent it since the fact I already released it makes it prior art, so they can't restrict me from doing more with it as I see fit, so I haven't lost anything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
