rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Jan 9 04:44:11 UTC 2008
Quoting Ph.D. (hawkins at cephira.com):
> There are deep philosophical divides between advocates of copyleft
> licenses (such as the FSF's GPL) and advocates of permissive licenses
> (such as BSDL)....
Is there actually _anyone_ who asserts that copyleft licences are always
a desirable choice, or who asserts that simple permissive licences are?
I don't think anyone at OSI does -- and FSF definitely doesn't, either.
(FSF has recommended one or the other, in different cases.)
A licence is a grant of permissions that, in context of applicable law,
is a legal instrument that carries out the copyright owner's intentions
concerning a covered instance of his/her creative work. I think most
(sane) people would conclude that the particular legal instrument that
will prove desirable depends on the circumstances and the copyright
> Legally there is no restriction on using GPL sofware in commercial works,
> but it requires you to release the source code to your work and allow it
> to be given away for free by anyone who wishes. Practically speaking that
> means you cannot sell your work (or at least, can't sell it more than
Are you willing to wager money on this assertion, Donovan? ;->
More information about the License-discuss