On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL > and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's > not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an > immoral restriction. Don't include GPL'ed software, then. > No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the > license takes away from you. (...) > Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference > between a license and a contract, but having agreed to: Regardless of legal system, you don't accept the GNU GPL. That's moronic since the GNU GPL is unilateral. "You do it this way, or you don't by default of copyright" > And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue. Someone who says they > got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to > something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking > away the choices of subsequent contributors: > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html?page=1 It doesn't take away the choices of subsequent contributons since they didn't have any by default. It *grants* extra freedoms to those by defaut of the law. That these extra freedoms have as a rule of thumb "if you distribute, you must give back under the same terms" is a *plus* and not a minus. What you're "crying" about is about the GNU GPL not giving the power to restrict freedom. An that is very good indeed, keep crying, at least I don't care for crocodile tears. Rui -- Frink! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
