> > Firstly: The FSF does not "approve" licences. The OSI does, yes, but > that's their idiocy. Secondly: The definition of Free Software is so > damn simple, you should be able to see for yourself whether or not > something qualifies. There are four freedoms: The freedom to run a > program for any purpose, to redistribute it freely, to study how it > works and change it, and to make any such changes publicly available. >
That's a good point. The GPL and CDDL are both acceptable on all of those criteria. > You may prefer the GPL over CDDL – I do – but at least try to base it > on something about those licences, rather than sheer bloody-mindedness. > Based upon the criteria that you've listed, there isn't any reason to prefer the GPL over the CDDL. But perhaps there is some other reason? I find both licenses acceptable -- but I prefer the CDDL. I have an aversion to the GPL based upon the fanaticism that surrounds it. However, this is not an issue with the license itself. I also liked the CDDL because it is much shorter -- and offers patent protection, while the GPL v2 does not. Given the very real danger presented by software patents -- there is a very clear reason to avoid the GPL v2. I gather there are some also some problems with the GPL v3. However I have not read it, so I'm not real sure what they are. Isn't it strange that GPL worshipers can't imagine mixing the GPL with any other license -- and yet the LGPL was created for precisely that reason. Perhaps I'm simply not well-informed enough, but it appears to me that with use of the LGPL code can be exchanged between Solaris and Linux. -- Cheers, ~Thomas "I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong." - Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________ gnusol-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-users
