On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Jim Hartley wrote: > But all those install scripts you are referring to are PART OF a larger > body of work which is primarily licensed GPL, so it makes sense to have > the same license for them. I agree, it's not always an easy choice, but > if you're not part of a larger work which is GPL, AND you don't really > need the protection GPL affords (is it likely that M$ will steal your > work for the next version of Windoze?), go with something simpler like > BSD ... or even declare the work Public Domain. But, if someone realy > wants to use GPL for a short script, I will not say them nay! > > JIm Hartley
In most cases I consider the install script as being separate from the software, since the *package manager* likely wrote the script, and not (necessarily) the origianl author(s) of the software being installed by the script. Likewise the install script may use a different license than the software it's installing. (On occasion the package manager and the original software author are one and the same person, though.) I agree that using a "tried and true" less-obscure existing license is preferable over using a more obscure or a new one. I didn't know about the "public domain" problem. :-/ Eww. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 4 - Sqeak! and eToys Jul 2 - KVM (Tenative) Aug 6 - Zenos Sep 3 - TBD
