Marco Peereboom wrote: >> 1) Both variants (and representative individuals e.g. RMS and Theo) >> encourage making useful software, using the software, and making money >> from the software. > > This is putting words in both these individuals mouth.
Putting words in their mouth would be more like X says, "Z" One routinely reads about mindreading on this list where X says that Y *thinks* "Z" What can be read/heard/observed from both is that they encourage making useful software, using the software, and making money from the software. Style and method diverge greatly, however. (*) > ... no idea why ... No one mentioned 'why'. Re-read the post. 'what' they are both doing is encouraging creation of useful software, using the software, and making money from the software. >> 2) Copyright statements (aka licenses) are just another tool. Different >> tools are needed to accomplish different tasks. Use the right tool for >> the right job. Get over it. > > copyright != license > > This has been explained on these lists many time before. Theo has done > some pretty good writeups on this. There are good and bad writeups in many places. But at the end of the day, copyright is just a supplemental tool. >> 3) There is one difference between the two in one aspect of how >> 'freedom' is defined, especially in the context of software copyright >> statements. They're not going to agree, they don't have to agree. >> Get over it. > > The courts tend to use the dictionary definition of words that in > dispute... So what. That will be relevant the day they go to court. (* again) For now, they don't have to agree. Get over it. They are different projects (sandboxes) with different rules in each, one ISC one GPL. So if you want to play in the sandbox, then those are the rules you play by. >> 4) Other than that difference, there is great overlap between the chosen >> copyright statements. ... > > There is no such thing as "copyright statements"... The world's publishers and even the world's library catalogers seem by some oversight not to have been informed of your new terms and concepts. For now, until your changes to law and language kick in, it will be fine to continue using the established names for statements of copyright. If you need an authoritative source, then look it up in the AACR2, among other places. Regardless of what you call them, there is large functional overlap between the ISC and the GPL. MS License 6.0 in contrast would be at the opposite end of the spectrum from either of them. >> 5) Cultivating antagonism between allies *is* a key part of the strategy >> used by the main opponent to OpenBSD. It wastes resources. In >> contrast, constructive competition leads to improvement. > [snipped] Regards, -Lars (*) I'm not concerned -- unless as an interim solution there is some sort of WWF-style smackdown charity match with proceeds going to either or both projects. RMS has the mass and a right proper Programmers' Beard, but Theo is probably in better shape.
