"Rahul Dhesi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I say that the notion of open source in any form would do what you want
here. Say, for example, the MIT License.
I further say that the GPL does not add anything practically useful to
this
task....
There is a pretty clear philosphical difference between the MIT License
and the GPL.
In the case of the GPL, the copyright owner does the rough equivalent of
offering a reward to others if they will agree to give something back in
return. That something is to share their changes and their derivative
works etc. with the world.
The MIT license offers a reward to others without requiring them to give
back anything. This is really nice if you wish to benefit from the work
of others but give nothing back.
So amicus_curious, do you wish to benefit from the work of others and
give nothing back in return?
It has never really come up. I work on things that are not really
susceptible to GPL claims. The only time that I have bothered with GPL code
was when I was trying to interpret elements of the Adobe PDF specification
and looked at the Ghostscript (?) code to see what they seemed to be doing.
At that time I was investigating what might be necessary to create a C#
managed code module to render PDF files in HTML as a file translation and
some of Adobe's spec items were unclear to me at the time.
I find the many web sites that publish descriptive "how-to" projects as
sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff. These authors seem only
interested in educating those who read their articles and rarely demand any
sort of quid pro quo. Microsoft itself publishes gigabytes of tutorials and
samples for this purpose.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
