On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jon Jensen <j...@endpoint.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Levi Pearson wrote:
> So the GPL may seem draconian, but if you had to specifically claim all
> the "rights" that copyright law gives you, you'd sound pretty preachy and
> fussy about rights and whatnot. I think in light of the new default
> "everything is copyrighted by default" legal situation (only since 1976 in
> the U.S.) the GPL is still pretty friendly.
>
> In other words, I don't see the more liberal licenses such as BSD or MIT
> being on any higher moral ground, or freer, than the GPL. They just have
> different tradeoffs.
Except that 'more liberal' literally means more free. :) I get your
point, though, and that's what I said at the beginning of this. I
don't care for the social movement surrounding the GPL, and I would
rather attend a presentation on technical topics than on Free Software
evangelism.
As a document granting specific rights, the GPL is a useful tool in
some circumstances. As a literary work, it reads like the love child
of a missionary tract and a regular software license. I don't
generally like its tradeoffs or its style, though I will concede that
it has served a useful purpose.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
