> "Jon M. Taylor" <taylorj@ecs.csus.edu> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Here's a first stab at it, in english rather than formal legalese:
>
> [...]
>
> > * You can make whatever use you want with the binaries and/or the source.
> > The license will specifically not have anything to say about
> > "dependencies", "system libraries", linking, commercial vs.
> > non-commercial use, etc.
>
> > * You are NOT required to distribute the sources with binaries (or
> > binaries with sources), nor are you required to provide pointers to
> > where people can obtain the latest versions of either the source or
> > the binaries, nor are you required to provide documentation or
> > explanatory material beyond the text of the license.
>
> Great! Please _do_ write something useful under that, I'll be more than
> happy to get it, compile it and sell it for lots of money.
Be my guest. If cared about the money aspect I wouldn't have
released my code as free software in the first place.
> After doing some
> unspeakable evil things with the source to make it somewhat more convenient
> to use, source modifications that I won't ever give to anybody so they'll
> have to get each and every copy from me.
Hey, those modifications are *yours*. I do not consider this any
different than if I LGPLed my code - it just makes it a bit more
convenient for the users of the code to use it in a more fine-grained way
than if they had to take the whole library in one lump or not take it at
all.
> You see, the GPL was written in this exact way to _prevent_ stuff like the
> X11R6.4 fiasko, or SunOS derived from BSD but non-free. Either you agree to
> something very much like the GPL, or you get the above.
I have no interest in using my code to blackmail people into
contributing to the free software community. If they want to enhance my
code and contribute those enhancements back into the community, great!
If not, they are not even in the same universe as I am and I don't want
to concern myself with having to police their use of my code. The GPL
currently forces me to police their actions in just such a manner, which
IMHO is a waste of time.
> [...]
>
> > That's it. Clear, simple, unambiguous [...]
>
> ...and totally useless.
>
> If you want public domain, you can get it. Same thing goes for BSD style
> licence. Just don't come complaining if they take your very own
> VeryGlitzyWidget, turn it into ExtremelyGlitzyWidget and sell it dearly.
I won't. I wouldn't have released my widget as free software in
the first place if money had been a concern. I release the software I
create as free software to expand the total pool of free software
available worldwide and so that no one else has to write that code ever
again. Any other considerations besides that 'taint' my offerings or
anyone elses. I guess it just bothers me how much non-free-seeming
baggage people bring with them to this "free" software community.
> Why do you think RMS got lawyers to work out the GPL for/with him?
Because he had/has his own set of baggage that has made the GPL
sufficiently complex that it requires lawyers to see all the
ramifications.
> BTW, just some *extremely* *radical* idea just came into my mind: Why ton't
> we take all this into gnu.misc.discuss, where it surely belongs?
Because my newsfeed is fubared and DejaNews refuses to process my
appliction to let me post |-<. Slashdot might be a better idea, if only
their discussions weren't so tied to the articles and thus are foced to
die out before their time....
Jon
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html