[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070917151505.GV18186@despair.weirdnet.nl>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:15:05 +0200
From: Paul de Weerd <weerd@...rdnet.nl>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: "Can E. Acar" <can.acar@...-g.com.tr>, misc@...nbsd.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
Eben Moglen <moglen@...twarefreedom.org>,
Lawrence Lessig <lessig_from_web@...ox.com>,
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@...twarefreedom.org>,
Matt Norwood <norwood@...twarefreedom.org>
Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not
| require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that
| something has to be given back.
Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
they don't require it, so we don't have to".
It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least.
No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a
strange signal.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
PS: Yes, I know .. but your "giving back" attaches new strings that
weren't there in the first place.
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists