From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 8 09:17:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00691 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:17:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00685 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:17:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id KAA12283; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:17:02 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990208100915.00be6840@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 10:16:56 -0700 To: Licia From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.19990208093715.04647610@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:08 AM 2/8/99 -0600, Licia wrote: >I don't mean to be inflamatory, but if the GPL upsets you this much, >wouldn't the most effective way to oppose it be to take the time and >make the effort to carefully create a new and detailed license focused >on your own particular goals, then make this license widely available >to the general public? It's simple. I recommend the 2-clause Berkeley license with the following additional clause: Neither this code, nor any derivative work based on this code, may be published under a license that conditions its use upon the publication of source code. This prevents the code, or something based on it, from being GPLed. >I honestly don't think any amount of posting of this type will have >any effect on the GPL one way or the other. It will simply continue >to stir up arguments and earn you a public label that I doubt you >would want to have. "Labeling" people is generally unwise; and I'd hope that smart people would know better than to do that. But if people recognize that I see the GPL as destructive, that's fine; that is indeed what I think. >I've posted an article as to my own thoughts on software licensing, >which is available at : > >http://www.o-o.org/~licia/writing/articles/licensing.html > >The article includes some commentary on creating a new license that >may be useful. :) Maybe. I think it's odd, though, that you state that a license should have a "Preamble." Only the GPL has one. In fact, it is the GPL's "Preamble" that attempts to hide the GPL's true intent, by saying that RMS wants software to be "free" rather than that he wants to destroy commercial software companies. --Brett Glass "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message