[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):

> >I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
> 
> This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and
> certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you wish to identify yourself as.

I am not a member of any 'GPL camp', either.  Thank-you-very-much.

If you are having a difficult time addressing this subject without
attempting to cram other participants into ritualised ideological
positions, it's possible you should not discuss software licensing.
Or software.


> >Here's something interesting:  I talk about copyleft, and about the
> >alleged '{relicensing|sublicensing}' of BSD works actually just turning
> >out to refer to creation of derivative works, and someone who wants to
> >argue with me starts talking about the GPL, as if there were no other
> >copyleft licences.  This is peculiar at the bset of times, but doubly so
> >on the OSI's mailing lists.
> 
> This comment is disingenuous.

Disingenous?  I point out you've just ignored the upthread context and
yanked the thread over to 'GPL' and you say I'm being dishonest?  That's 
a good bit of cheek.

> Which other copyleft license is both strongly copyleft and have over
> zealous proponents? 

Who cares about the 'proponents'?  That has nothing to do with the
antecedent topic.

Listen, you seem to want to have an ideological disputation with
someone.  I'm neither interested nor suitable for that purpose.  Have a
great day.



> The point is that there is a finite pool of open source developers that do
> this for fun on their own time.

Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly:   (1) People
can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
perform with their own property.  (2) You should take care to understand
all of the implications of any licence you use, because somebody else
definitely may, and you'll look really silly acting surprised.

When people start talking about the 'finite pool of open source
developers' on account of the unfortunate-for-the-speaker fact that some
of those developers choose to do something the speaker dislikes (but
that is lawful), I gently direct the speaker's attention to point #1.
I.e., get used to the idea that that 'finite pool' are not your staff
and are unlikely to do your bidding, unless perhaps you intend to hire
them.