Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
>[...]
> > Sorry, I thought most would be familiar with this story.
>
>Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said as the usual "BSD-like
>licenses are evil, just see what Microsoft did with Kerberos".
>
Ah, sorry.
No, I am not religious about anything about licenses other
than the fact that they should mean what people think that
they mean. If there is a disagreement between the two then
the license needs modification or the human needs education.
With the BSD license the sort of games I am talking about
are irrelevant. The original author has no desire to keep
any sort of artistic control and therefore games that are
meant to get around those controls miss the point. But
with the AL there *is* the desire to some that specific
controls, and therefore the games matter.
The more control you wish to assert, the more you need to
worry about methods of circumventing that control. All of
the way from BSD where pretty much nothing offends you to
the nitpicking you see with the GPL. (Which tries to
promote a very specific philosophy.)
Use whatever license or combination thereof that manages to
meet your goals is what I say. Arguing over what people's
goals "should" be is counter-productive IMHO. There are
valid reasons for every position in the spectrum, and just
because someone else currently sits at a different place than
you is not proof that they are wrong...
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
