On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday 02 July 2010 22:55:27 narendra sisodiya wrote:
> > > I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then
> > > INAL.
> >
> > As per my knowledge, I may be wrong,
>
> you are wrong
> > If something is "not copyrighted" then it becomes public domain.
>
> the moment you publish anything, you automatically get copyright of it
> whether you like it or not, or mention it or not
>
> > License
> > comes into action when somebody has full rights (ie copyrights) and he
> want
> > to give some limited freedom to enjoy some software under some terms and
> > conditions. (ie license). If somebody do not include any license then it
> > means he is not permitting anything. If somebody is not including
> copyright
> > then it means it means that software is public domain.
>
> license comes when he either gives limited freedom (as in GPL) or full
> freedom
> (as in BSD).
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a
developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop
something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world
is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making
companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to
reuse in any manner.
The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users
where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our
software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become
like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community".
Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am
commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have
limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is
good.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
