Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GPL is great for simple things, that don't create any standard, but
> work upon one.  But as even RMS [I think it was RMS] agreed, BSD
> license is much better for 'standards'. -- ie the oog format was BSD
> licensed and the GPL people endorsed it because this would allow oog
> to grow, as now corps can [try to] make money off a format in their
> proprietary devices, unlike if oog was GPLed, it would die as no one
> would support it except for the linux folks.

Beware.  Richard Stallman also advocates changing to more restrictive
licenses once the software (in general, not ogg in particular) has
gather sufficient momentum.  He wrote a diatribe a year or two back
where he argued that the time had come to switch glibc (IIRC) from
LPGL to GPL so that all the commercial software vendors who had become
dependent on Linux would be forced to GPL their software or fold.
Talk about bait-and-switch!  It's for this reason, by the way, that
the LGPL has been renamed from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL".

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Reply via email to