On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 23:09, Ric Moore wrote: > My original point is that if something is broken and someone can fix > it... it may help others, in unforeseen ways, to try to improve things a > bit which may come full circle back to you to improve your own life. If you really believe that, why apply the GPL restrictions? Let people reuse it and improve it any way they can. X probably wouldn't exist as a GPL'd work - or NFS, yet they now are available for everyone. > I > have no problem with the GPL on that basis. For me, it keeps it free and > Bill Gates can't get his hands on it. <evil grin> Ric Even Bill Gates sometimes does charity work... The more interesting issue is what happens when the 2 idealistic pursuits you've mentioned clash? That is, do you deprive the people you would like to help with this software by making a system that cannot use technologies under different licensing (mp3/mpeg and many others) because of the GPL restrictions or will you condescend to something like perl's dual license to allow it to be improved in any way someone would like? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
