On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 16:22, T. Ribbrock wrote: > The GPL - as I understands it - aims at "freedom of the software" > (sounds odd, but I can't think of a better term right now), Freedom of all users. > i.e. it > protects the existence and the development of the software by making > certain that all enhancements/changes/developments (within the limits > of the GPL) have to be made public as well as enabling *everybody* to > modify/enhance/develop said software. Actually, it protects all users, by preventing that someone would eventually be impeached of benefitting from the Four basic freedoms ALL users shouldn't ever be restricted from, as defended by the FSF. > They are just different goals and philosophies and in my eyes, both > are a valid choice. Anything is a valid choice, including suicide. However some choices may indirectly cause harm to other users. Should the BSD IP stack have been GPL'ed source code, would Windows ever get so fast on the Internet band wagon? It's hypothetical, by I wonder... Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
