2010/12/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Miroslav Pokorny < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 2010/12/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Steve Lindsay < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 9, 8:43 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Besides, as we discussed, GPL is a terrible license that basically >>>> takes >>>> > away all your rights and forces anyone that uses it to do the same. >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> The GPL is not a terrible license just because it does not make you happy. >> >> > > Oh I'm not saying this because the license doesn't make me happy. It's a > license, it's not like I have to share a room with it or something. > > The only reason why I'm saying this is because I have yet to come across a > company/organization that hasn't banned the GPL across the board. I've also > come across a few fire drills where the possibility that some code might > have been shipped with GPL code in it and I can tell you that this mere > possibility kept all the executives up at night and on weekends for months. > > That's what makes me say it's bad. >
This has nothing to do w/ the GPL. The same problems occur w/ commerical s/w licenses - everyone has different rules defined, about how many users can use it ever, at once, on certain days, what is a user and so on. That is mostly nothing to do w/ licensing or the GPL but more about business and its objectives. Im not sure why you mention executives, what have they got to do w/ the GPL, is this a coding exerciuse for them ? > > >> Just think without the GPL the author(s) may not have released anything, >> at least because of the GPL younow have a choice. If you dont like the >> licensing agreement, go somewhere else. >> > > It's funny that you think "take it or leave it" is a choice. > > At least the author was generous enough to give you a look, and a chance to use, which is better than nothing at all. > > >> Its not fair you want software to be completely free which is one of the >> aims of the GPL, and yet you charge to deliver a solution to a customer(s). >> > > Hundreds of businesses work with this model on a daily basis, I don't > really have a problem with it as long as you don't violate the rights of the > person's whose work you are using. > > Im just making this up, as i do not know of the importance of GPL in helping Linux grow, but just maybe just maybe Linux might not exist if another license was picked. I dont particular love linux but if i want to use it at least i can, which is better than not having linux around at all. This is all assumptions, and guessing but at least one can say that the GPL has givenmore people more choice. It may not always be compatible with software sellers but thats another story. > -- > Cédric > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- mP -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
