-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> on 2/22/01 2:58 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think it is worth while to make the argument that as long as it is *either*
> > GPL or APL the license can still be under Apache. Why??? You can still use
> > the APL as much as you want... the only thing we are allowing is that now the
> > GPL camp can use our software.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> No offense Kevin, but that is a really bad argument to state in this camp.
> :-) The simple reason being that people in the GPL camp CAN use and
> distribute our software without any real restrictions.
No... they can't. I can't use the Servlet API from Tomcat within a GPL
product...
> It is the fact that BSD zealots (including myself mind you)
I am a BSD zealot too :). Also a GPL zealot. It is just case dependent :)
> cannot use GPL software in conjunction with BSD software that is the
> issue. Dual licensing the code isn't the solution because it is a hack to work
> around the larger issue...which is the viral nature of the GPL and is
> something that I fundamentally don't believe in.
The viral issue won't ever be resolved. I think this is the Zen of the issue.
Just deal with it. :). GPL won't be going away any time soon.
The point is that you can still use you BSD license jon. :). I can use the LGPL
license if I want to write code for GPL projects. Not only that but it doesn't
spawn wars like KDE vs GNOME which just wind up hurting everyone.
> The solution is simply putting a less restrictive license on the software in
> the first place
ah. this is a HUGE bag of worms. What does "less restrictive" mean?
Putting on my GPL hat I would say that the BSD license is more restrictive
because it doesn't give me (the author) rights over derivative works.
Putting on my BSD hat I would say that the GPL is more restrictive because it
requires that everyone release source code for products even if they don't want
to.
... the truth is somewhere in between. I think Dual Licensing solves the
issue. You get your BSD and I get my GPL :) :) :)
> and understanding that there is no need to force people to
> release changes to your source code into the larger community because if you
> have a decent community in the first place, the changes to the software will
> come back on its own eventually regardless of the license.
<snip>
ah. no. I wish the situtation were like this in all situations jon. The truth
is it isn't. :( It is somewhere in between. This is why I think that when you
go to license a software project you need to approach the issue on a per-project
basis. You can't really (accurately) make a blanket statement like "BSD for
everything" or "GPL for everything".
GPL really does solve a lot of problems. BSD solves a lot of problems. I am
not trying to come up with any resolution to either of these issues, I just want
to resolve the conflicts with both camps by letting each roam free and do what
they want.
- --
Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
proprietary == evil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt
iD8DBQE6lhinAwM6xb2dfE0RAhC7AJ473BZrs8vxeOSGt+Ftg82eKieAhACgsTBM
jm8f6W+HT/xHarZn0qZzzM8=
=sciX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Waco, Texas Khaddafi munitions Albanian DES Mossad North Korea NSA KGB smuggle
South Africa Peking class struggle Nazi Treasury
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
