At 11:44 AM 11/15/2009, Allen wrote:
I find it hard to believe there are actually people in this world who won't use software because of the license it has,
I am, among other things. a professional software developer. Why should I use software whose license is explicitly designed and intended to deprive me of a livelihood (as the GPL is)? There is also a real risk, if you have looked at GPLed code, that someone will argue that your future work is derivative of the code you saw and therefore must be given away for free. No professional developer can afford the risk of being caught in this trap. It happens that I do give away some of my work (including contributions to the BSDs), but this is by choice.
when they recommend someone using Windows and Firefox... Do you see the humor in that?
No humor at all. Windows is mostly closed source (though some of its utilities are actually licensed under the BSD license), and that's fine. Programmers have the right to earn a living. Firefox has an ugly multi-part license that I do not like much, but at least it offers some non-viral options for reuse of the code. MacOS includes some BSD-licensed stuff and some closed source; again, that's fine. On the other hand, you may recall the grief that NeXT went through when it made the mistake of using a GPLed compiler.
In any event, the real dangers of using GPLed code are twofold. Firstly, if you read the source, there is the risk of "contamination" (as described above). Secondly, you are encouraging an agenda which is intended to deprive programmers of a livelihood. This is unethical.
--Brett _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
