From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:09 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>
>>On 1/19/06, Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>BTW, desiring to control the behavior of others is generally
>>>considered a personality disorder.
>>
>>
>>BTW, that's exactly what commerical EULAs do, also. So commerical
>>software distributors are all rife with personality disorders, as
>>well?
>>
>
> After reading a few EULAs, do you any droughts about them having
> "personality disorders"?
Some of them seem to, I agree. But not all EULAs are bad.
Take, for example, GPL. Do you think it is a bad EULA?
---
for the EU, it's a pretty good deal - in fact, I think that's why most
of us are here.
Not being a programmer, I stay out of the fray and pretty much figure
that right or wrong, every programmer has the right to determine,
what/where/when/how they practice their craft and who gets to
see/use/inspect their craft.
This discussion has ranged to widely to ever get some type of agreement
amongst the people who have sounded off and to some extent, there is a
lot of agreement.
Please let's keep this in perspective. As a user GPL is great for me.
As a developer it might not be as risky as I perceive it to be as a
non-lawyer and person who cannot afford to place a lawyer on retainer
for reviewing the GPL situation. As ME as a developer, therefore, it is
too risky as a development platform, even though I keep looking at it
as a means to escape Microsoft's claws.
So it's hard to call GPL good or bad. It's simply GPL. Some aspects of
it are rather good and useful. And some aspects of it seemed designed
to stifle earning a living with it as a programmer not part of a big
company that pays for private in house development or pays for sufficient
legal review of code to make sure no aspects of GPL have been allowed to
encroach on proprietary development work. (It CAN be done. TIVO did it.)
{^_^}
