There's a lot of mystery here surrounding my reasoning around not supporting the GNU General Public License. I don't blame anyone for that. Firstly, what is the definition of open source?
- It is a common belief that source and software should be open and shared amongst people without restrictions. It is NOT, in my opinion, a religion as most see it, neither should it be. - I believe open source is to benefit other programmers (and end users as well in the long run) to make software better. It is NOT so one group of programmers can put themselves under one roof and criticize other programmers who do not support the GPL. - It is a collaboration of programmers to make software better by better solving problems with code (namely security holes and bugs) and to make it easier for *others* to use. The GPL differs from other licenses, as I believe both Linux and the GPL in general stand for something open source never should be: rebellion--*especially* towards Windows programmers and users. Is this fair to insult them, just because they prefer a different platform with different concepts on software? I will state clearly and simply that this is immature, and it is not supporting the true open source idea. When making software began, programmers collaborated on ideas and programs, almost like we're doing now on this topic. However, when the GNU licenses *prefer* computer daemons combined with symbols reminiscient of hellish characters and terminology, I cannot as a Christian support either the BSD or GPL licenses. I'd honestly prefer the more open MIT because it is more open to users. While using Linux, I found myself uncomfortable with what the GPL stands for. Therefore, it is difficult to use the GPLed GNOME, knowing that GNOME is the desktop environment on OpenSolari s. The only thing I was hoping to do and/or know is if it could be rewritten under a different license from source--obviously, the answer is no. But please understand that I do not think all GPL programmers or users are wrong, or obviously, you would be right in criticizing my dislike of the GPL. There are helpful GPL programs--they're just under the wrong license, in my opinion. And I also know that there are GPL programs supporting great OSes like OS X and OpenSolaris, and the Haiku project. Therefore, I think it impossible any system could be "GPL-free" but as close as possible when it can be achieved by selecting alternatively licensed software when it can be helped. I hope everyone can understand what I'm saying. I did not mean to make any sort of trouble by starting this discussion. I asked a mere question because I wasn't sure if changing between GPL and the CDDL or MIT could happen--with the GPL, it *can* change "compatible" licenses to itself. I just wanted to know if it applied to the GPL as well... Thanks, John, for replying to the previous comment. It is very much appreciated. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
