Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:48:47 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhellenthal@dataix.net> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD license Message-ID: <20120411154847.GA62348@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <1SHqI5-0000qk-02@internal.tormail.net> References: <1SHqI5-0000qk-02@internal.tormail.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Set a meeting place, make sure there are lots of flags on the walls (I prefer red, white & blue) and also make sure that during all the ranting and chanting going on that you unveil the newest, leetist golden bikeshed. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/save-ants.html On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:40:24AM -0000, toredhiddenuser@tormail.net wrote: > Hello everyone, > There are many people who use GPL for their projects unaware of the terms > of license. We can observe that most "new technologies" and protocols are > licensed under BSD-license. > As you are already subscribed to the mailing list, you probably have much > education of licenses and may be aware of dreadful deeds of GNU * License. > > The main problem is "Viral" copyleft nature. Anything that even LINKS to > the GPL'd files SHOULD BE under GPL, as you may probably know. > LGPL is viral too. MPL, on the other hand, didn't catch much attention, > but if you imply the protection of source code by means of copyleft, hope > it's the best way around: Less restrictions, but provides copyleft nature. > > Apparently, new developers who are unaware of copyrights, release their > source into GPL. > The new developer communities have an inclined trend towards GPL like: > "The projects we see are GPL'd. Why don't we use that license?" > Some companies, (probably the worst) use the GPL to force an "addiction" > and to force a need of dual-licensing. ****** and *** ************ > (removed because of problem) use this license for such purpose. Doesn't it > seem like some sort of Blackmail? > > BSD people should start a project to request some near-mature projects to > beta-projects to be licensed under BSD/MIT style license, or, at least MPL > (better than GPL, anyhow). > (Is the name BSDActivists and BSDActivism) nice? > > There have been many proposals by some people, you can observe: > These proposals were collected (probably) anonymously, for privacy of the > doers. These attracted attention. Summary: > > > Audacity: Dominic Mazoni (lead developer), Re-licensing request failed > (needs $); > Matt Brubeck: failed (but affirmative, says he have released > other code under MIT license, but doesn't apparently have right > to do relicensing.) > > Removing OpenAL from SFML: Failed, they say there is no "better one" > > PAQ compression, Matt Mahoney: New compression method, ZPAQ is Public Domain. > > CppCMS: needs $ to do so > > Wikipedia: FAILED, for a reasonable reason > > EFF HTTPS Everywhere / Vidalia / TorButton : IN PROGRESS > > Request for Kaos.To to remove Privoxy and to include Polipo: NO RESPONSE YET > > > BSD developers should start an activism to promote the BSD license and to > make re-licensing request to developers. All BSD promoters should take > notice on this. Don't be afraid if this is posted on multiple BSD mailing > lists, like OpenBSD's or NetBSD's, because, it's probably the time to > unite all the BSD people. > Is anyone interested? > Thank you for your patient reading. > > Sorry for the last e-mail which was somewhat so-rant-like: Thanks to Eitan > Adler for pointing out. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ;s =;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120411154847.GA62348>