On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 14:25 -0400, Sean wrote: > > That's not clear at all. There's plenty of useful software with > > less restrictive licenses and not much to demonstrate any > > cause and effect between the GPL and development. X and nfs > > probably wouldn't have been created at all under GPL; perl wisely > > uses a dual license to avoid being locked in or out of either camp. > > The proof is that there are authors that choose the GPL because > it makes sense to them. Proof of what? There are also authors that choose less restrictive licenses. > The fact that many of these projects > develop healthy ecosystems is enough for me to believe in the GPL. Then apache, the *bsd's, etc. must be enough to show that the GPL is not necessary. > But there are other good open source licenses too, and there is > a place where proprietary licenses make sense too. But I sure > don't see any of that as a reason to work up an anger against > anyone that chooses the GPL, its their business. Yes, or it is their political statement... I'm just happy that dual-licensed projects like perl understand that it is not necessary to play that game, and like to point out that the restrictions can be a problem. Some projects might use the GPL just because it has its own public relations foundation and they've heard of it rather than really wanting to add the restrictions. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
