On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:54:23AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > >>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote: > >> > >>>Shawn Walker wrote: > >>>>If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I > >>>>suspect > >>>>others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless > >>> > >>>Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the > >>>license be > >>>modified to be GPL compatible. > >> > >>Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible. > > > >Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it > >is as > >simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?) > >thousands of > >free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical. > > So I have to ask, why is it OK for the GPL to insist that in the name > of "compatibility" code under other licenses should be irrevocably
I never saw GPL say such thing, nor did i think that GPL is capable of authoring such thoughs let alone express it, unless Artificial Inteligence has made such progresses that a mere licence is capable of thoughts :) Well, Richard Stalmann, the FSF and other GPL-adherants are perfectly free to voice their opinion about this, its caleld free speach, you know, but that has nothng to say the code they wrote under the GPL is under the GPL, that you will it or not. > re-licensed under just the GPL when combined into derivative works, but > "unethical" to suggest that code licensed under the GPL should be > re-licensable under other licenses under the same circumstances? Well, if you licence code under the BSD or another licence which code to be integrated in GPLed work, then it is your express wish to allow that, and i don't see why you should complain. The truth is that the dominant open source/free software/whatever you name it community is based on GPLed programs, and thus it is their opinion that an GPL-compatible OpenSolaris makes more sense for everyone involved, but they can only ask you to do it, and point you out the advantages of it in order to convince you. That said, i would never willingly release myself code under a BSDish licence, unless i get some compensation for it. The GPL has no such problem, because the way the GPL is used itself is compensation enough. Now, notice that there is a misunderstanding here, the only one the GPL protects is the customer/user of your product, which is assured that he will not be held hostage by the provider of the code, it is just common usage to largely distribute the GPLed code, but if you have a single lone customer, and you give it the GPLed code, he will probably not even use it unless you are not up to your part of the bargain, but that falls into contract law at this point, and not copyright law. > Equally friendly :-) Indeed :) > S. S. too :) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
