> > Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by > > likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad > > thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I > > want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing > > someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL > > is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes > > usable to other businesses. *shudder* > > (Note that this is in the same reply where you promised to stop > using the word ``business.'') > > I'm not saying that incorporating BSD code into a proprietary > product is a bad thing, or that it is not what you want. > > What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD > code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously > say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. > GPL code is nothing like a perpetual patent; it's a copyright on a > particular expression. Naturally the GPL doesn't apply to your > code; how could it? The GPL only applies to code that somebody else > wrote. Correct. > For your purposes GPL code is unusable. That's fine. For your > purposes proprietary code is unusable. That's fine. My question > is: what is the difference between the two cases? Why is GPL bad > and proprietary good? Why bother to distinguish the GPL case? See 1st point above. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3