On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, UNIX admin wrote:
This is what I am referring to, among other things:
"7. License Compatibility.
When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your
own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give,
appropriate copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly
permit all the activities that this License permits, or permit
usage or relicensing under this License. Your terms may be written
separately or may be this License plus additional written
permission. [B]If you so license your own added parts, those parts
may be used separately under your terms, but the entire work
remains under this License[/B]."
Taken directly from:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
And that is just one of the things I find to be insane /
unreasonable / fascist with the license. There are many more parts
which made my jaw drop.
What's wrong with the above exactly? "you may include your own terms
.... as long as those terms permit all .. that this License permits".
Seems fine to me.
How could anybody accept or license their work under this license?
Why would they ever want to submit their work to such fascist
terms?
I think possibly you have misunderstood the terms above, or
alternatively your outlook on licencing is radically different from
the convential view of those who think the GPL is a useful license.
That clause only allows additional permissions, *not* restrictions -
hardly "fascist" (unless you think the GPL of itself is such).
I could think of a number of licenses far better than the GPL. CDDL
is one such case. BSD license, another.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=gpl+versus+bsd+license
Why is CDDL suddenly no good any more? Why?
Who says it is not? JS's blog talked of the possibility of
*additional* /dual-licencing/ under the GPLv3.
Note also that the v3's "additional permissions" section (above), as
well its patent-peace provisions (extensable too) likely could allow
the aims of the CDDL to be expressed in terms of GPLv3 + Sun's
additional permissions + patent terms. Ie they could almost be
interchangeable (other than that GPLv3 allows the 'additional
permissions' to be discarded by a user or redistributor, if I have
read correctly).
NB: I am also [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I speak for myself. :) I'm also
[EMAIL PROTECTED], to give you an idea of where my
software-licensing compass might point.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
When pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure?
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
