Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:14:12 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Cc: lcremean@tidalwave.net, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, licia@o-o.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <199902091614.LAA10727@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990208121541.0457d5d0@mail.lariat.org> from Brett Glass at "Feb 8, 99 12:18:33 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass said: > 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. > Just make sure you add an advertising clause, and/or explicitly allow people who redistribute binary code to choose to redistribute source. Also, make the code clean, and it certainly wouldn't fit in :-). -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. 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?199902091614.LAA10727>