On 2009-04-06, Rjack <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
