Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Idea: "GPL Plus" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980506120044.681A-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <199805061643.KAA08867@lariat.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 6 May 1998, Brett Glass wrote: >At 09:25 AM 5/6/98 -0700, Jason Wells wrote: > >>(No insult intended. Just fleshing out the issues.) Why would we even want >>to write a license that gives GPL any credit by inclusion of "GPL" in the >>title "GPL Plus"? > >Marketing. People who do not even know what the GPL *says* routinely tout >it as The One True Way to stimulate the production of free software! They're >convinced that brilliant genius Richard Stallman crafted The Holy Writ, and >So Mote It Be forevermore. The notion that this is explicitly intended to >be an an improvement could win over some of these people, whereas that >"California license" -- which they're used to thinking of as coming from >an opposing camp -- wouldn't. To paraphrase: Use the name recognition of GPL to win over GPL zealots to a "Berkelyized" "GPL Plus" in the interest of making more people support a higher degree of freedom. Is this correct? This is an admirable aim. Name recognition is certainly a powerful thing. You make a point about people who know only the name GPL and do not know the content thereof. These people who do not know GPL well might be a target for such a tactic. The people who do know GPL well; they will spot this tactic immediately. Their anti-commercial bent will immediately go to work to protect said "Holy Writ" from corruption. You need proof? Go tell a student of the Bible that Paul did not write Hebrews! (Religous analogs are so pertinent :) ) Trying to appear as to not be in the enemy "California" camp is very tricky ruse. It may have some merit against the unwary. I think the wary will be allover this ruse like stink on do-do. That is why they can be called zealots. I think the best way to make people aware of alternatives to GPL is to continue to plug the Berkeley License. Also, we may plug the Artistic License for the soul purpose of supporting alternatives. Let's not try to beat the zealots in their home territory. Let's win support at the fringes where a strong zeal has not yet developed. I am one of those fringe people. I became a free(dom) software supporter within the last two years. Because of my experience with FreeBSD, I am more in support of the Berkeley license. My point in telling all of you this is that the Berkeley/FreeBSD way can win the support of individuals even in the face of strong GPL zeal. Perhaps a Berkeley Vs. GPL comparo _on a web page_ (not a NG) with no possibility of zealous reprisal would be in order to advance the less restrictive Berkeley license. (Guess what I am searching for on the net after I am done here.) Don't get into a debate. Just publish a supporting opinion for Berkeley licensing. Thank you, | Try some of this. It will show you where you're at. Jason Wells | 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.3.96.980506120044.681A-100000>