<rant>While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses noble, I *bitterly* resent the complexity of the GPL, especially version 3. The implication of that complexity is that a programmer who wishes to develop free software must in fact be or hire an intellectual property attorney. As a result, I personally use the GPL only when *forced* to do so. There was a time when the GPL was the only viable open-source license, but that is no longer true.
There are a great many open source licenses available now. When I work with Ruby, for example, I use the Ruby license. But most of the time for the few things I create myself, I use either the BSD or the MIT license. I do not plan to *ever* release anything under the GPL 3. My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk, with the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up with an open source license that says something like this: "This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your fame and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too." </rant> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
