On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 00:08 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > > > 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? > ---- > Regardless of any point you make, you have no point to make. > > Linux is GPL and will always be thus. Be sure you always state that as "a modified version of the GPL" when it applies to Linux. > This is a Linux list. No, this is a list for a distribution that includes works under many licenses and it is misleading to imply that one of them is more responsible for what is included than any other - although it would be correct to point one out as the reason certain things can't be included. > The subject > license is that which is chosen by whomever owns the code...period. > > If you write code, you can release it under whatever license you choose. I have no problem with anyone choosing a license with an understanding of its terms, but it's rather clear that many people don't understand the side effects of the GPL. In fact when the FSF lawyer states: "We will not advise you that it would be safe to do so, but we also will not advise you that it would be absolutely forbidden." (http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/data/doc/gstreamer/head/faq/html/chapter-legal.html#legal-distribute-three) I think it is entirely possible that no one understands them. > Other than that - your postings amount to little more than pissing in > the wind. Yes, the damage is already done on existing GPL'd works that aren't dual licensed, but people are starting new projects all the time. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
