License Approval Process

[Jacques Chester]

Hello all;

Martin Konold wrote:
[..]
> The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that
> according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL
> without exceptions.

I look on this as a bit of a strawman. It's
easy to be confused by Richard's subtle
distinction between "Free Software" and "Copyleft
Software".

Free Software means you may redistribute,
alter etc the software at will. This includes
the BSD, MIT, X, Artistic licenses, amongst
others.

Copyleft is the 'next level', adding the two
major conditions of the GPL: that if you
distribute a changed version of the software,
you must also distribute the changes; and that
software including copylefted code must
itself be copylefted.

Just as a copyright protects the holder from
their property being abused, copyleft is
meant to prevent abuse of free software
code.

Everyone has motivations for their licenses.
The GPL has a valid motivation, as do the
BSD and MPL (and other) crowds.

> This is the reason why all other currently (according to RMS) compatible
> licenses allow for non reversal converting to the GPL at any time.

RMS is RMS. I suspect he'll be banging on the
lid of his coffin if it wasn't designed with
copylefted software :)

> Yours,
> -- martin

be well;

JC.