On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:55 +0530, Rony wrote: >> > not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they >> > prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license. >> >> For the sake of those who have been following this long thread and >> trying to make some sense out of it, could we have an objective list >> of >> Licenses from all participants with their pros and cons listed. If >> GPL >> restricts freedom then in what way? If BSD restricts freedom then in >> what way? Short and simple please. > > there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD > license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says: > > you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. > The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot > use the original name or attribute to the original. > > the GPL says: you can use modify redistribute, but you cannot make it > proprietary and if you distribute your modifications you *must* > contribute it back > > All other licenses fall between these two. (except the microsoft > licenses which are even weirder than the GPL) > > The above is an over simplification of course. >> >> If experts on this list cannot agree on what license is good for >> software, how do we expect companies to decide on what type of >> software >> they will implement on their systems. > > the *nix view is to have many small tools - each tool does only one > thing and does it well. The doze view is to have one giant tool that > does everything. Each type of software is different, and a license that > suits one type will not suit another - also a license that is good for > one country may not be good for another. > >> IMHO, this world has a wide >> variety of business models, software under different licenses and >> everyone appears to be making a lot of money and there is nothing >> that >> will last forever. Changes are happening all the time and happen to >> everyone. So lets give everyone the freedom to choose their favorite >> license and focus on developing software that is most usefull to >> everyone. > > right you are. I for one am not actually anti-gpl. I have many good > friends who use the GPL and I respect their choice and also I feel that > things like iptables and such stuff are best GPLed or put under some > restrictive license. What I am opposing here is the GPLwalas who think > that everything (including their pseudo open source wares) should be > GPLed.
Let me clarify all - I never said, everything can be GPLed. I opposed only one argument of KG where he said GPL restrict freedom - "The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. #GPL" >That the GPL is the be all and end all of open source > development. And who sneer at all other licenses and gleefully predict > doom if one uses one of them. There is also a large class of people who > are taken in by this propaganda and think that there is only one open > source license foolishly license their software under the GPL and only > realise their mistake too late. > > -- > regards > KG > http://lawgon.livejournal.com > Coimbatore LUG rox > http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ > > -- > http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers > -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
