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

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 6/11/12 3:39 PM, "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

>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.

Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.  Something that
you are well aware of.

Lets get back to the crux:

"A certain number of the BSD regulars remain deeply unhappy when those
works state copyleft requirements, even though they're perfectly happy
when derivatives of the same BSD works have proprietary licenses.  Go
figure."

What was the value of this observation?

What don't you understand, after all these years, about why some "BSD
regulars" remain "deeply unhappy" regarding a copyleft vs being "happy"
with a proprietary derivative?

I'm finding it humorous that you don't like the idea of putting you in a
"camp" when your original statement refers to "BSD regulars".

Friday I was annoyed.  Today it's simply funny.


>> 
>> 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.

Yes, disingenuous. 

That I state GPL is because historically that's been the license with
which there has been conflict.  If I am incorrect, perhaps you can cite
for me which other copyleft license that "BSD regulars" have been unhappy
with? 

There was no "upthread context" relevant to your observation about "BSD
regulars".