>
> Actually, I was wondering what flaws they thought existed in the GNU
> licenses.
Well, you should probably visit a BSD site for details, but I think
their main gripe is that the GPL is virus-like, in that it prohibits
linking to anything non-free (with system libraries installed as
routine on a proprietary operating system being the noted exception).
So, I could build Emacs on my Windows NT box and use it within the
rights of the GPL, but I couldn't add my own proprietary extension
to Emacs. I'd be forced to release it as GPL/LGPL (or other compliant
license).
The LGPL is a bit more leniant, and allows linking against non-free
items -- if Emacs were LGPL'd, I could create a proprietary add-on
and release it.
Their argument (IIRC) is something like "The GPL is actually LESS
free because I limit what future people can do with the sources".
So, they view it as a flaw, I see it as a primary purpose to CHOOSE
the GPL.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
-Brent
