Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:17:20 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: lcremean@tidalwave.net Cc: brett@lariat.org, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, licia@o-o.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <199902091617.LAA10735@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <19990208141042.A2652@tidalwave.net> from Lee Cremeans at "Feb 8, 99 02:10:42 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lee Cremeans said: > On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 11:37:01AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > At 09:37 AM 2/8/99 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > I see your point about the language. Still I strongly believe that, > > if we do not place a "poison pill" against the GPL in our licenses, > > we will see the GPL subsume all else. If you were to add something > > that would prevent open source code from being relicensed under > > the GPL, how would you phrase it? > > > > 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". > The standard BSD license is already poison pilled. In fact, it is quite fair by requiring attribution. Just be sure to provide an extra 20-30K of CDROM space for attribution. :-). One other reason for not publicizing the use of BSD code, is the advertisment clause. That is actually a disadvantage. -- 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?199902091617.LAA10735>