On May 22, 2:14 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 writes: > > So, it's to create *more* free code, right? > > Yes. > > The FSF position is controversial. In my (nonlawyer's) opinion it would > not stand up in court. However, the authors of GPL software are _giving_ > you the right to use their code under the terms of the GPL. They don't > have to do this. They could make it available (if at all) only under the > default copyright terms, Why not comply with their wishes? Why all this > effort to evade the obvious spirit of the license? If you don't like the > terms why not write your own or get what you need elsewhere?
I sure could do all of those things. It's just that I'm asking more about why the license is the way it is. If I don't want to GPL the code I'm using it in I'll just look for another option or write my own. > -- > John Hasler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dancing Horse Hill > Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
