Todd Walton wrote:
On 8/10/06, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[re: open source license proliferation]
The GPL is as much at fault as "all those other silly licenses".
The GPL is not a one shot license covering one or two pieces of
software, and has been around since before there was "open source" to
license. Your statement is disingenuous.
Sigh. And your statement is historically ignorant.
The BSD license appeared with the BSD Unix distribution in 1977. It
covered *far* more code at its inception than the GPL did at its inception.
If, however, OS code doesn't count for some reason, I point you to the
circuit simulator Spice. Spice was developed in 1975 in Fortran and the
last of that line, Spice2G6 in 1983, was certainly covered under a BSD
License, and I believe that several of its predecessors were, too.
By contrast, the "GNU General Public License" didn't appear until 1988
(1985 if you accept the "proto GPL" forms). And it started life as a
"one shot license" primarily to protect Emacs.
So, the BSD license is both older and covered more code at inception.
By your criteria, the GPL should never have been started.
However, we can compromise. How about the MIT license? That should be
acceptable, right? No?
Awwww. Now you're just being unreasonable.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
