Quite right, I agree! BSD-like licences are far more "free", as in
"do what you want with it". The FSF uses the term "free" as a
philosophical term though, more like "free-running water". The idea is
that the software brings "power to the people" in a hippy kind of way.
Interestingly, Linus Torvalds has always said that his intention with
the Linux kernel is to make good technology freely available for
everyone, and the GPL2 is just a means to prevent people from claiming
the kernel as their own. He doesn't actually agree with the FSF's
philosophical perspective, which is why he's not a fan of the GPL3. I
tend to agree with him :)
Paul
=RiCo= wrote:
On 4/16/08, Paul Gideon Dann<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isaac Dupree wrote:
> advantage of "copyleft" license like GPL is that contributors who
> contribute their changes *must* be releasing them under GPL so we don't
> need to worry/ask about whether they agreed to the license (I think?)
>
Yes, I think contributing a patch kind of implies that they're releasing
it under GPL if the main work is GPL, or ISC if the main work is ISC. I
don't think copyleft has any bearing on this. However, it seems to me
that the problem being discussed is more to do with *changing* the
licence. Because the author of any original work automatically owns the
copyright (unless he explicitly assigns it to someone else), they need
to give concent if the licence is to be changed.
Paul Gideon Dann
in my opinion GPL type licenses are in fact not free, as u are not
free to sell software that uses GPL licenced software. LGPL is more
free as only the LGPL licensed software needs to be made freely
available.
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
