"Ronald L. Chichester" wrote:
> Python has its own license. Incidentally, RMS has had some trouble with
> the Python license. None of my clients, however, have felt the need to
> address the Python license (unlike the GPL).
Ahh yep... the licence for the actual python interpreter is a little odd, in that it
requires any legal action
pertaining to it to be held in a certain state of the USA. Other languages that make
similar claims for different
states may conflict. That's the only real reason you can't use the licence with GPL
code - no biggy really.
However, I was talking about the restrictions on interpreted code, since it's not
actually combined with anything
into object code. I'm not certain what restrictions are made on interpreted code -
that's quite relevant in the case
of FreePM (see how I got things back on topic? I rock. ;-)
> If you want to have a discussion on this, just remember this. When you
> strip things to the chassis, the key difference between the GPL and the
> BSD license is that the GPL requires a grant-back for modifications.
> The BSD doesn't. In our case, a BSD "protected" FreePM would be
> suseptable to being taken in by a major conglomerate, modified to
> include proprietary formats, and then sold to a number of physicians.
> Same functionality, but different file/protocol formats would render it
> unlike the rest of FreePM. The project then, would be effectively
> forked. The GPL would prevent this.
The GPL doesn't prevent forking per se (though you may not be saying it does).
However, the nice thing about code
forks with the GPL is that the best bits of any fork are usually put back into the
main source tree. That's what
happened with gcc/egcs. To be honest, I don't think any company would really benefit
greatly by maintaining a tree
of their own, it would be a lot more expensive. I have faith in the process (open
source) as well as a love of the
ideology (free software). I suppose at the end of the day, the people who actually
contribute the code should make
the decision.
> The question then, is do you consider the potential for forking to be
> great or small? If you want to preclude forking as much as possible,
> then look to the GPL. If forking is not a concern, then the BSD license
> will be okay.
Forking is great. :-)
It's a means of experimentation, and should be encouraged. People do this all the time
with the linux kernel. Of
course, the best bits end up back in the 'official' tree. Even in the case of the BSD
licence, often proprietary
changes get released under an open licence eventually.
> The Apple experience with Darwin and OS X (based on FreeBSD, with the
> BSD license) is a perfect example of a BSD style license being used by a
> company to take a code base and make it there own. That couldn't happen
> with the GPL (assuming Apple played by the rules).
I don't have a major problem with the way Apple is handling things, hopefully they'll
see the advantages of
contributing back to the community soon. The major advantage here is that the more
they please the community, the
more help they get. I really think there's a business case for free software, it just
takes a bit of getting used
to.
I don't want to drag this licencing decision on too long, there's code to be written
after all. :-)
--
Oliver White
_______________________________________________
Freepm-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freepm-discuss
