(Disclaimer: IANAL) The GPL is significantly less complex than most other software licenses. The complexity is (supposedly) necessary from a legal standpoint. For some reason 'You are free to do whatever you want with this software, however if you distribute it you must distribute the source code with it and any changes to the code must be distributed under these terms.' doesn't cut it from a legal standpoint.
My guess it is lawyers defending their jobs. If legal contracts were written this clearly, we wouldn't need so many lawyers... Sort of like programmers writing obfuscated code - Only worse than most Perl hackers could ever imagine. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Urwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:06:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [newbie] Told ya, don't trust IBM On Friday 20 Jun 2003 2:12 pm, JoeHill wrote: > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2136285,00.html IMHO, the GPL is becoming difficult. It's so complex it would take a lawyer to work out what it really means. When you screw your brain around it enough you find it will probably allow what you want to do, but it takes some mental strain and it isn't a sure thing. That makes it a hard sell to management types, and an easy pot-shot for the entrenched pundits. BSD is a lot simpler. Maybe we need a license with the effective meaning of the GPL, but which isn't weighed down with the philosophical baggage. It would be nice to have a 100% service oriented income-model across the board, but is it necessary, achievable or desirable?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
