Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 12:18:33 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: lcremean@tidalwave.net, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Licia <licia@o-o.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <4.1.19990208121541.0457d5d0@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <19990208141042.A2652@tidalwave.net> References: <4.1.19990208113442.00c08cd0@mail.lariat.org> <Your <4.1.19990208100915.00be6840@mail.lariat.org> <2620.918495440@zippy.cdrom.com> <4.1.19990208113442.00c08cd0@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:10 PM 2/8/99 -0500, Lee Cremeans wrote: >Brett, you're missing the point yet again. The BSD license as we see it is >free to _all_ comers, no matter what bent they may be -- GPL, proprietary, >even (*shudder*) Microsoft. Putting a "poison pill" in the license would >make it just as distasteful to the champions of free software as the GPL is >to corporations. Like Jordan said, this is one of the great things about the >license we have now; it doesn't assume that one group of users is inherently >"evil". I don't see it as a matter of good and evil but as a matter of basic fairness. I don't think it's good to offer the code on one set of terms to users and on another (very onerous) set of terms to commercial developers. I'd like to see some ideas about how to avoid this! For example, should I write a whizzy new driver for FreeBSD, I'd hate to see it incorporated into Linux when my intent is to promote BSD-licensed software. --Brett "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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990208121541.0457d5d0>