From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Apr 21 08:28:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25215 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA25208 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:28:05 GMT (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA25450; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:27:59 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA03451; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:27:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980421172759.60471@follo.net> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:27:59 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The "Anti-GPL" References: <199804211519.JAA07257@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199804211519.JAA07257@lariat.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:19:24AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:19:24AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > I had an interesting discussion with some friends who > are Linux "fanatics" last night. They said that the *BSDs > will naturally never do as well as Linux, because the GPL > "locks" code into the GNU model. That is to day, the Linux > folks can take code from FreeBSD, add their own, and > "copyleft" the result -- at which point it can't be > published again under the less restrictive Berkeley license. > (And to think that the Linux folks claim that *others* > "take code hostage.") This is not allowed by the GPL. The GPL explictly forbids more restrictions than the GPL itself place on the code; thus, such code in not re-distributable. > Of course, I don't want to *call* it the "Anti-GPL," though that's > my working name.... I'd like it to call it something like the "truly > free software" license. > Or something even more catchy. Any ideas for names? > For provisions that should be included in the license? Just include a statement that 'derivate works may not be placed under a license which deny binary distribution without source availability, or place restrictions on binary distribution that make this impractical.' or somesuch - that should be enough, I think. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message