From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Feb 17 20:46:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA16125
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar (ras517.srv.net [205.180.127.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA16105;
          Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from cmott@localhost) by darkstar (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03635; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:26 -0700
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net>
X-Sender: cmott@darkstar
To: dyson@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: GPL
In-Reply-To: <199702180352.WAA03008@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970217212802.3518F-100000@darkstar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Summing it all up, the above describe a set of "controls" and "limitations"
> that seem to be quite contrary with the notion of freedom.  The key in the
> use of GPL (or any other license or contract) is to read and understand it's
> ramifications.  Frankly, many people who take license terms seriously (and
> also have strong ethical feelings) might not think that GPL is an appropriate
> license to encumber their software with.  (That statement can also be true
> regarding the "Artistic License" or the "BSD license or its variants".)

I agree with your comments.  The self-replicating nature and potential
legal complexity bothered me.  The GPL is somehow a faint attempt to
remake the world in a GNU image. 

As near as I can tell, the BSD copyright is only self replicating with
respect to the notice, but people can do what they wish with the software. 
I am actually a little puzzled as to the original motivation for the BSD
copyright.  The Regents of the University of California had no profit
motives, nor did they want to impose the concept of free software on
others.

Charles Mott