From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 8 07:13:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18147 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:13:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shale.csir.co.za (shale.csir.co.za [146.64.46.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA18137 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from reg@shale.csir.co.za) Received: (from reg@localhost) by shale.csir.co.za (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA29258; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:10:47 +0200 (SAT) (envelope-from reg) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:10:47 +0200 From: Jeremy Lea To: "Jasper O'Malley" Cc: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <19990208171047.D96974@shale.csir.co.za> References: <4.1.19990207230639.009284c0@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Jasper O'Malley on Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 08:38:22AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 08:38:22AM -0600, Jasper O'Malley wrote: > That might be RMS' intent, but it sure as hell isn't the intent of most > people I know that have GPLed their software. Don't cloud the issue with > rhetoric, Brett. At least in my experience, people GPL their software > because they have a fundamental desire to keep other people from profiting > from their freely given work. I can completely understand how someone > would GPL their work for reasons like this, just as I understand how > others (myself included) would put a BSD license on software to stimulate > commercial interest in a project. The Mozilla Public Licence (http://www.mozilla.org/) are much better for the job of protecting ones work. It is middle of the road: If someone wants to change the code they have to contribute those changes back, but if they want to extend the code, then they can choose their own licence (BSD, NPL/MPL, etc). They can't use the GPL, because of the GPL requires that they ensure that all of their code base is licensed under the GPL, and the MPL explictly limits relicensing. FreeBSD could use MPL licensed code in the kernel or main libraries without any problems, since it is non polluting, and commercial companies can reuse the code provided they return their bug fixes. To my mind, the idea of protecting ones ideas is quite valid, and I'd MPL my own code if I thought I was going to get ripped off by a commercial company. It's using the GPL to gain access to others intellectual property, by 'blackmailing' them if they want to use mine, which I don't like one bit. Regards, -Jeremy -- | "I could be anything I wanted to, but one things true --+-- Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna hold the world in my hand | Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna build a promised land | But that's, that's all right, OK with me..." -Audio Adrenaline To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message