On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:17:30 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2003 at 3:31, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. �τό wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is
already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into
something that is NOT Free Software.
On the other hand if something is NOT Free Software it CAN be turned into
Free Software (with the provision that it this cannot be revoked as it
defeats the term).
Therefore you can move from a closed to a Free Software license but not
vice versa. Especially not when the software that you are porting is
already covered by a F.S. license.
Well that's exactly my argument. Their licence cn't be turned into this one and this one
not into theirs. So why is ours the bad guy and not theirs?
Nobody's is "THE BAD GUY". I tend to think that the latter is better but as I said again, a license is in the final analysis a decision of the author of the software. Whatever he does with it it's his business...
To add a small thing to that and to close my contributions to the thread as, however interesting, starts to take a lot of time... Without changing the license as it stands, I would feel a lot more comfortable with it, if software by any author could maintain its own license instead of collectively be assosicated with the "major license" (What Marcel assumed as true). That way you can keep the license as it stands for the original author and choose one license that permits redistribution for additional code submissions. This I feel would solve a lot of problems... not all but at least several :-)
Phoebus
--
Visit the QL-FAQ at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/> (Still uploading stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html>
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:<http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html>
