On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:44:08 -0700, "Rick Altherr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Be sure to tell that to the FreeBSD community. BSD and LGPL do not > stifle contributions in any way. GPL is just forcing people's hand to > its own detriment. In many cases, a business will extend a BSD- > licensed library and contribute the changes back since their product > isn't the library but the product using that library. On the other > hand, a GPL'd library can't be used in a commercial software product > at all, so those businesses will never contribute back since they > can't use the license to begin with. Actually it's very simple. GPL is more open. It insures everything that includes it will be open. BSD and LGPL are, by definition, less open. If you consider that to be a bad thing, then it is your opinion based on your point of view. If someone is paying me to write code, it's licensed how they want it to be licensed. If I am writing code for myself, I get to choose. I choose GPL and I have my reasons and they work for me. Lots of projects have multiple licenses one of which is GPL and the other is commercial. Even big companies do it, like Trolltech with QT licensing. It works for them. Maybe I want to be as big and rich as them? How are they making a mistake? I don't see it as a mistake. If you want "most open" you choose GPL. Anything else is "less open", including public domain, because that can be used in code that becomes closed. But if you want "less open" you choose other licensing. And that is what you say is best. What you choose is fine with me, it's yours to choose and you have your reasons. What I choose is my choice. Cheerful regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free _______________________________________________ AVR-chat mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat
