"Open Source" Motif

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:

> But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> think the GPL winds up being the best license:  The one that will suffer
> the fewest chances of being ripped off by someone who wants to turn it
> into something non-free (proprietary).

Your wording is off a bit. If your goal is software that will be free
in each and every instance, then the GPL is a good choice. But if you
only want to ensure that the software is free, then any free software
license is sufficient. To a BSD or MIT author, the notion of "ripping
off" the software applies only to the grossest of copyright
infringements. If someone comes along and releases a closed-source
version of X, the MIT version is still available and free. Nothing has
been taken away from anyone.

To put it another way, if your starting premise is that since
information is infinitely reproducible at zero cost it should be free,
then it naturally follows that any software, once free, is always free
regardless of any microsoftian schemes. The problem with the MS
Kerberos fiasco is not the closed source implementation, but the lack
of open specifications. 

-- 
David Johnson...
_____________________________
http://www.usermode.org