On 2009-04-06, Rjack <u...@example.net> wrote: > Thufir Hawat wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: >> >>> Thufir Hawat wrote: >>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't >>>>> "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as >>>>> BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to >>>>> being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed >>>>> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a >>>>> religion. > >> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is >> pointless. > > The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code > and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed > zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. > >> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just >> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's >> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. > > The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using > permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs > will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of > wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a > religion.
Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The "burdens" of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. -- The best OS in the world is ultimately useless ||| if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss