"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup schrieb: > >> That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them >> guarantee the freedom to change the code. > > Yes, but again nobody really changes platform / infrastructure code > _behaviour_ or high level interface _contracts_ on a daily basis.
So what? People wanting to promulgate standards tend to use a BSD style license _exactly_ because it can be embedded into stuff with wildly different licenses. That's the deal that makes certain that your example implementation of some interface will get the largest distribution. > You do not gain anything, even as an OS vendor. There is a common > consensus what an mainstream OS should offer from a functional > perspective to the application programmer. I am talking about the > way malloc / free is supposed to work and things like a file system, > process etc (very system specific thigns vary, for example threads). So you are confusing licenses and standards. >> Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. > And of course, irrelevant. > > > This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to >> _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. > Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to > BSD. These are just the rules of this licensing game. Well, as soon as it ends up in Microsoft, it can never go back to BSD. The whole point of the BSD license is that it may end up as any number of different licenses. >> You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD >> license > > I just want to release code under the BSD license and ensure that it > stays under the BSD license as long as it is redistributed / > published in source form. But that's not the purpose of the BSD license. The purpose of the BSD license is to permit relicensing under whatever license the recipient may desire, just with a restriction of keeping attributions intact. >> If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated >> freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD >> license. > > Hmm basically I can choose whatever license _I_ want to, I do not > need to use any of the licenses you mentioned here at all. Sure. But it looks like you want a self-preserving license (in order not to allow relicensing). And the BSD is not a self-preserving license. Both GPL and LGPL are. So you effectively want GPL or LGPL, except that it should not be called that. Sounds like you have an ax to grind rather than a case to make. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
