FC4 or FC5
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 18:47:01 UTC 2006
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 14:25 -0400, Sean wrote:
> > That's not clear at all. There's plenty of useful software with
> > less restrictive licenses and not much to demonstrate any
> > cause and effect between the GPL and development. X and nfs
> > probably wouldn't have been created at all under GPL; perl wisely
> > uses a dual license to avoid being locked in or out of either camp.
>
> The proof is that there are authors that choose the GPL because
> it makes sense to them.
Proof of what? There are also authors that choose less restrictive
licenses.
> The fact that many of these projects
> develop healthy ecosystems is enough for me to believe in the GPL.
Then apache, the *bsd's, etc. must be enough to show that
the GPL is not necessary.
> But there are other good open source licenses too, and there is
> a place where proprietary licenses make sense too. But I sure
> don't see any of that as a reason to work up an anger against
> anyone that chooses the GPL, its their business.
Yes, or it is their political statement... I'm just happy that
dual-licensed projects like perl understand that it is not
necessary to play that game, and like to point out that the
restrictions can be a problem. Some projects might use the
GPL just because it has its own public relations foundation
and they've heard of it rather than really wanting to add
the restrictions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list