begin quoting Martin B?hr as of Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 01:54:49AM +0200: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 04:41:23PM -0700, Todd Walton wrote: > > So, if you want yourself advertised, then why not license your code as > > GPL + Advertise Me? It doesn't have to actually be in the GPL as > > published by the FSF. > > the problem is not my code, but being able to use someone elses > bsd-4clause code together with gpl code > > i want my code to be compatible with everyone elses.
It's sad when you sit down to (re-)use some code, and after glancing at the license, say "I'd really like to give my code away, but not under THOSE conditions, bugger this, I'll hack my own together." The end goal of the objective user is to end up with a rich, clean, stable, debugged codebase that compiles everywhere.... > if i add an advertizing clause to my code then you may still not combine my > code with bsd-4clause code (unless i add an exception allowing others to > be advertized too), AND you now may not combine my code with any other > gpl code, because then my code is NOT gpl anymore. The GPL claims to apply even to dynamic linking to shared libraries, right? > so "advertize me" ruins just about everything we are trying to achive here. And yet, "advertise me" is perhaps the lest onerous constraint to put on the code. "I made this!" is one of the most basic virtuous impulses we have. Justified pride, and all that. Of course, having dealt with some autoconf-mangled GPL'd code today, I can see why the FSF wouldn't consider that an important thing. Who wants to admit to creating code *that* ugly? -Stewart "I do _so_ have vsnprintf you stupid configure script!" Stremler
pgpDqz06xixES.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
