> There hasn't been much comment about the interesting recent suggestion to > affiliate ourselves more strongly with the FSF (GNU) folks. Unicon is > already under GPL, and unless I hear objections from stakeholders by > Valentines Day 2/14/03 I will do what I can to cooperate with Jose Marchesi > along the lines he suggested to further GNU-ify ourselves.
Without knowing the reasons why, it makes it hard to comment. Is this being done to give it a distribution channel? I'm all for this, as it is a good way to keep the language in the (programming) public eye. Is this being done to protect Unicon from commercial interests? I'm against this, as it is just solving a problem that doesn't exist. While there have been commercial attempts at distributing Icon in the past, there are none (that I know of) currently. Personally, I would welcome that distribution channel as well. The work that Unicon is based on is public domain. It doesn't seem right to me to put that work under a more restrictive license. Legal? Certainly. But is it Right? My view of freedom is closer to the BSD style and BOOST style licenses than the GPL. However, due to personal commitments, I do not have the time to contribute much these days, so I'm not sure how much my opinion should count here. Just my thoughts, -- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (773) 961-1620 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
