On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:11:28PM +0200, Uriel wrote: > Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't > require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only > requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their > code.
Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is as effectual as a license can get. > > Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and > resources. I agree with Alex that the best is Public Domain, or at > least BSD/MIT/ISC-style license, which is as close as you can get to > Public Domain while retaining copyright. Unfortunately, as a race, we have not yet come to the agreement of throwing every lawyer on the face of the earth into a volcano > > Peace > > uriel > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > >> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > >> > > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > >> > > > >> > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > >> > > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > >> > > > >> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > >> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > >> > > > >> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > >> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > >> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am > >> > > certainly > >> > > willing to change to it. > >> > > >> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. > >> > > >> > > >> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't > >> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing > >> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and > >> > libraries. > >> > > >> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not > >> > my war. > >> > >> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that > >> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is > >> important > >> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without > >> helping > >> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. > >> > >> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see > >> any > >> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others > >> are made > >> available to you. > >> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > WBR, Alex. > >> > > > > > D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't > > forced > > to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you > > have > > to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less > > idealistic. > > > > >
