Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:47:53 -0600 (CST) From: Licia <licia@o-o.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902081124110.4775-100000@o-o.org> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990208100915.00be6840@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > 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. > Then perhaps you should write that clause, attach it to a copy of a BSL, apply a specific name to it, and advocate this license by name, publicly? > >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. > Labeling is sad, I agree. I have been the victim of it many times. However, it does still happen, and at times the effect of that labeling must be considered if our work is to have any effect. > >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 > In what way do you find it odd that I mention that some licenses have preambles? Have you read many software licenses Mr. Glass? Quite a large number of licenses use preambles, including the artistic license authored by Larry Wall which is one of the two licenses Perl is released under (and to which there is a link in the article) along with most commercial licenses. I take exception Mr. Glass, to your misquoting and paraphrasing of what I said regarding preambles. I point out, if you had actually read the article, that "many licenses actually disregard this section." additionally, at no point say did I say that one 'should' be included. What I said regarding a preamble is this : * The Preamble : Usually contains commentary about the purpose of the license, philosophy, etc. This should be kept short if possible, and many licenses actually disregard this section. This is also a good place to comment on the copyright and license for the license itself. (that being a direct cut and paste from our beloved Lynx) In the future please do not misrepresent what I've said. [ licia@o-o.org ] [ http://www.o-o.org/~licia/ ] [ Alias : Ladywolf] [ Telnet to o-o.org and log in as bbs ] [ ssh -l bbs -C o-o.org ] [ A happy user of FreeBSD : http://www.freebsd.org/ ] 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9902081124110.4775-100000>