Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> You don't lose “control” or “rights” to software that you never had.
It is so amazing to see the ways people will twist and contort in order
to get the fruit of other people's work without actually doing the work
themselves. I think the idea that people would defend a system where
people loose the rights to their work is unbelievable.
> If you modify code with the intent to distribute it without the source —
> and discover that it was GPLed, the fault is yours, not the copyright
> holder's.
This is a tangent unrelated to this discussion.
> That major GPL projects seem to outnumber major permissively-licensed
> projects shows the error of your logic. That is, plenty of programmers
> must see some sense in working on GPLed software.
Actually, it would confirm the logic that the GPL's viral nature is the
reason for its success, not that it is superior. Any license that
forces you to adopt it is obviously going to be more prevalent that a
license that does not make the same requirement.
> We know what the GPL is. If it is so obviously against everyone's
> interest to work with GPLed software, why does it prosper?
Probably for the same reason people smoke, drink and drive, speed and
any other number of things.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/13/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST