Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
That's all? It really is just a matter of opinion then. (and seeing as
I'm convinced capitalism doesn't work, it's my opinion that the GPL is
one of the best things this world has seen in a long time.)
--
Rhamphoryncus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome to my world.
