-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 27 October 2006 08:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say: >>> even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license >>> being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is >>> not. >> >> You cant have a simple licence. > > you can - if the license is evolved in the foss way - as all the other > licenses are evolving, and as far as i can see, getting more and more > like each other. As i said before comparing the non-religious licenses > to the GPL v3 is like comparing Linux to Hurd.
I really fail to understand the reason behind your fascination for BSD / MIT style licenses. Do you really think Linux (the kernel) would have been as powerful as t is now had it been released under, say the BSD license? Exactly why do you think FreeBSD doesn't support half the hardware that Linux (the kernel) supports today? Even 5-6 years back FreeBSD was considered far more superior than Linux (the kernel), so exactly what happened to the Linux kernel project in the recent times and how did FreeBSD lose the race? Now don't talk about the licenses of Python, PostgreSQL, etc. They are in BSD style licenses because those projects are relatively smaller in scope and size as compared to say gcc or the Linux kernel. None can take the Python source, modify it a bit and call it their own Foobar programming language, because it will remain Python no matter how many cosmetic changes you make to it. And in fact if somebody embeds the Python interpreter into their non-free application, that also is indirectly good for Python as it will become more popular (that's the original intent of the language developers), but I don't think it will be beneficial for the OS kernel if people don't contribute back. When your project is as large and as widely scoped as that of the Linux kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may suffer as FreeBSD is suffering these days. Theo de Raadt (hacker extraordinaire) has absolutely no way to make sure people who use FreeBSD source contribute back in some way, and thus the only thing he can do is cry out loud and beg people for code and or money. You see when your country is as small as say, the Vatican City you can do without a constitution and manage with a minimal set of rules. But when it's as large and diverse as India, you must give up some of your freedoms to make sure everybody has the minimal set of freedoms. Ditto with Free Software projects. And your claim about GPLv3 being over-engineered is moot because for a license to be legally binding world wide and to be one with least loop-holes, the language of the license must cover all possible aspects and situations. That will obviously make the license complicated. Look at the Indian Constitution or the IPC. They are not global or fool proof in any sense and yet they are not so simple. What you need to understand is that the GPLv3 text _is_ legalese, and legalese is never simple. Regards, BG - -- Baishampayan Ghose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/ 1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFQZ7RQkk0lIY2G3QRArzRAJ9w+P8q84idpU7KO39VmQv086+ncQCfc7Ou DB6I9Jy2iMHI0NdhRFLpV/g= =aK47 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
