> I therefore favor those licenses that permit the most real freedom. And from
> my naive understanding, among them would be BSD and Public Domain (ala
> SQLite).
I guess I can jump in here, now that I'm back in town.
BSD has often been equated to a license to steal, and in fact Microsoft
"stole" the BSD networking stack for NT4. The license allows no actual
stealing, but it comes pretty close. Sure, you can argue otherwise, but if you
write code, anyone can take it and do what they want with it, and they owe you
little-to-nothing in return. Money isn't the currency in question... their
changes are theirs, and you can't use their modifications, unless they decide
to be nice to you. They can change the license AFAIK, or at least that's what
Microsoft did, unless I'm sorely mistaken.
I am definitely a believer in the GPL, by the way (version 2, at least). I can
see Jeremy's point, and apparently I've forgotten his back story, but I'm no
fan of anything except GPL-licensed code. Anyhow, if you don't like the terms
a particular application is released under, there's always freshmeat.
-- Joey Kelly < Minister of the Gospel | Linux Consultant > http://joeykelly.net ___________________ Nolug mailing list nolug@nolug.orgReceived on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST