On 2010-05-08 22:03 , Paul Rubin wrote:
"Martin P. Hellwig"<martin.hell...@dcuktec.org> writes:
I fail to see what is morally wrong with it. When I ,as the author,
share my work to the public, I should have made peace with the fact
that I, for all intends and purposes, lost control over its use.
Does the same thing apply to Microsoft? If I get a copy of MS Office,
do you think I should be able to incorporate its code into my own
products for repackaging and sale any way that I want, without their
having any say? If not, why should Microsoft be entitled to do that
with software that -I- write?
Martin is not saying that you *ought* to release your code under a liberal
license. He is only saying that he does not believe he is inviting moral hazard
when *he* decides to release *his* code under a liberal license. He was
responding to Steven who was claiming otherwise.
Is there something in the water making
people think these inequitable things?
Is there something in the water making people think that every statement of
opinion about how one licenses one's own code is actually an opinion about how
everyone should license their code?
If Microsoft's licenses are
morally respectable then so is the GPL.
Martin is not saying that the GPL is not morally respectable.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
