On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:28:29PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote: > It seems likely that no one license can preserve all possible > freedoms. In my view, both licenses have advantages the other > cannot possess. So I don't think reconciliation is required, or > even desirable (and, from a purely selfish standpoint, I find > following these threads to be far more entertaining than sports). > Despite your differences, you probably remain the other's > closest ally. > > There is ample room for GPL and BSD. We need eternally free > software, if only as a counterbalance and last resort to > encroaching commercialism. But there are also essential > functions in a networked world that are best served by > software that can be used for any purpose. I value the > liberty of deciding what freedoms are most important to > a project and its goals, and picking the license that > best suits it.
There seems to be a subtext in your message that one license is more free than the other, and that the more free license is the GPL. This is not true. Offering something to someone as "free" with one hand, while taking back rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no debate on which is more free. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
