Two GPL Questions

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 03:33:36PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> Perhaps you might want to look at another license altogether.  There are 
> several weak to moderate copyleft licenses (MPL, QPL, etc) that may fit your 
> needs without making you feel cheap-and-easy for using them. Or maybe 
> copyleft just isn't for you. Copyleft is all about being in control of the 
> software, despite the FSF's protestations to the contrary. Maybe the BSD or 
> MIT licenses would be more to your liking.

I disagree.

Copyleft is all about the freedom of code.
No one can control the code, because anyone can exercise their freedoms
with the code. _ANYONE_

All one can do is control one fork of the code, but still, the code
should still be gpl'ed so you can get back any changes if you so wish,
thus allowing divergent opinions to flow, and create an evironment where
the best shall resist (see the gcc fork, for instance).

BSD allows other to fork your code, extend and embrace it and never ever
compensate you for anything (see the case of microsoft's ftp client, for
instance) if they so wish.

With gpl no one can embrace and extend, without you being able to
embrace back.

So yes, it is about control, more specifically, of battling control.

However, although I disagree with that path, if you feel like you want
to take the risk, follow any other license. I can't force you, just
provide you with my advice.

I do however understand you fears about the "or later" but since no one
can take control of the code, only of a certain fork on someone's
storage, there is no risk.

Hugs, rms
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011211/f6f32737/attachment.sig>