Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 09:25:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Idea: "GPL Plus" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980506090935.409A-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <199805060549.XAA02561@lariat.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Brett Glass wrote: >All: > >While I was dealing with the "Linux zealots" on the InfoWorld forum, I >realized that one of the problems was that some of the people there were >ideologically bound to the GPL. I don't think the GPL is optimal because, >unlike the Berkeley license, it doesn't allow commercial re-use. So, >tonight, while mulling over what transpired, I had an idea. How about >drafting a license called "GPL Plus," which is -- essentially -- the GPL >but includes terms for commercial re-use? > >It actually wouldn't be that far, in effect, from the Berkeley-style >license. But perhaps the notion that this license is LIKE the GPL, but adds >something (the potential to stimulate the development of commercial >products) would help to convince some of these folks that it would be an >improvement. FWIW, Has anyone read the artistic license? It has some neat features. The GPL has wording in it that states that you "may not change this license". Anything that was GPLesque would have to _not_ have "GPL" in it title. I like the Berkely license. In this case Mr. Glass, it seems that you waiver slightly with respect to the ongoing issue regarding GPL zealots. (No insult intended. Just fleshing out the issues.) Why would we even want to write a license that gives GPL any credit by inclusion of "GPL" in the title "GPL Plus"? I have read the GPL a couple times but I am no lawyer. It seems to me that the primary GPL aim is to prevent people from making money off of other peoples volunteer work. If an hacker is worried about this let him use GPL. IN this respect (to address Mr. Glass' concluding statement) I do not think a GPL Plus would convince any GPL zealots of anything because GPL zealots use GPL _precisely_ because they don't want any one making money. (Rant) After reading FSF page I must say I see a bit of hippy communist lawyer turned hacker in their verbage. I remember the part of a post scarcity society. I don't buy this, therefore I don't really bite into the GPL. This is entirely personal. (Rant off) I don't think this is where the FreeBSD camp pitches its tent. I think GPL is restrictive. I think Berkeley is Free(dom). I don't see the need for change. Thank you, | Try some of this. It will show you where you're at. Jason Wells | http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980506090935.409A-100000>