Get ready....

[Derek J. Balling]

>I think this is a bad thing.  If this idea were to be put in place it would
>have the potential to harm and restrict someone's freedoms. 
>
>For instance I could copy some freedom(s) from the GPL but not others.  I
>could give my users the freedom to distribute but restrict there freedom by
>not letting them modify it.  

Isn't this your right as a developer? To release your code under whatever
license you see fit? What I'm suggesting is offering developers the option
of looking at licenses that "almost" match their needs, and allowing them
to modify them to fit their needs.

Yes, this allows people to alter the license. It also allows you to use
diff as your friend to find the additions/removals/alterations from the
"previous" license.

>The only way this idea would not restrict freedoms is to say "You may copy
>specific wordings from this license, but in addition to your excerpt you
>must also include the rest of the freedom's in accordance to the GNU GPL in
>your own form.  No freedoms listed in the GNU GPL can be ommited."

I disagree. The GPL is NOT the be-all-end-all. To believe otherwise is to
seriously underestimate the requirements of the commercial world.

If the GPL was the end-all-be-all, then the GPL itself would be released in
a GPL-like manner. As you'll notice, it isn't. It's a copyrighted document
with the phrase:

" Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. "

Where's your freedom there?

The only true freedom you have is choice -- the choice of not using
software if you cannot abide by its license agreement, or developing your
own application using the license of your choice to compete with the
offending product.

D