VanLUG Email Archive
> Also, see http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.html for rms's point of
> view on the BSD license....
Yes, I've read that. In particular, his phrase `We recommend
copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users' is overt
doublespeak as blatent as anything the Soviet Union ever put out.
I can point out some users of the software who have less freedom
with copyleft: those that want to integrate part of the code with
their own programs, without giving their own programs away. Since
they can't do this, they simply rewrite as necessary, which is a
waste of time. Under either scenario, the distribution of modified
binaries or the rewrite, the other users of the software see no
net loss and no net gain; they have what they had before either
way.
However, I fully agree with his rant about clause 3 of the BSD
license, and I'm all in favour of removing it, and often do so in
things I put under BSD license (which is not much; currently I
prefer to put my code into the public domain).
> 1) GNU GPL/GNU LGPL/NPL/etc license followers are mostly people that
> do *not* allow their code to be used in proprietary applications,
> that's why it is more open.
I don't understand how restricting the use of your code makes it
more `open.'
cjs
Curt Sampson
Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc. Through infinite mist, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 In code possess'd of invisible folly.