On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:47:01 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Proof of what? There are also authors that choose less restrictive > licenses. At the very least it is proof that some people like the GPL and want to use it. > Then apache, the *bsd's, etc. must be enough to show that > the GPL is not necessary. Les, you really need to put your personal agenda aside long enough to acknowledge that some people like the GPL and want to use it. You're free to use the apache and bsd licenses if you choose. > Yes, or it is their political statement... I'm just happy that > dual-licensed projects like perl understand that it is not > necessary to play that game, and like to point out that the > restrictions can be a problem. Some projects might use the > GPL just because it has its own public relations foundation > and they've heard of it rather than really wanting to add > the restrictions. Choosing the GPL is no more a political statement than choosing a proprietary or BSD or MIT or any other license. It's whatever makes sense to the author. It's their choice to make since they're the ones who created the software in the first place. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
