Ed Leafe wrote: > On May 4, 2007, at 1:36 AM, Paul McNett wrote: > >> Best to keep it clean and >> just use 100% free as in freedom code if you can help it. > > Um, this is where I think we differ on interpretation. > > GPL software *is* 100% free(dom). What is different about this > license is that it requires software that uses it to also be 100% > free. This simply means that you cannot reap the benefits of freedom > and then turn around and deny them to others. > > Linux and probably most of the non-Microsoft/Apple world would not > exist if it were not for this philosophy. The fact that the psycopg2 > author used GPL instead of the more appropriate LGPL doesn't mean > that there is a problem with GPL. > > -- Ed Leafe
I don't get the point. Did Paul say that he doesn't like the GPL? Did i say something like this? As Dabo itself has a non restrictive License, you seemed to have reasons to not use a GPL License for Dabo. So what was your motivation? Why do you think using a full non GPL software stack is that different? Uwe _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/%(messageid)s
