IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Wouldn't that also apply to non-OSS licenses?
I haven't really thought through the implications of that, but whenever someone describes a potential pitfall of the GPL my first question is, "Is that not equally true of a non-OSS license?"
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Yes
But proprietary projects often have simpler ownership than a complex OSS projects. That makes amending licenses easier.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Sounds like the real choice in licensing is simplicity
GPL provides simplicity of terms. Proprietary licenses provide dimplicity of ownership. You can't negotiate new terms on a GPL product without first identifying everyone with a copyright claim to it.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New BSD is simpler
They've even addressed the public performance issue IMO.

GPL v2 doesn't do that.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Hate to say this, but ...
If Bruce Perens has any influence on the future direction of the GPL, and if what he told you turns out to have been a goal and not an interesting side-effect, and if the articel that started all is a valid indication of what's under discussion -- lots of ifs there, I know -- I may have to agree with opponents of the FSF that the goal really is that all software should be free. Not Free, free.

It is uncomfortably easy to see a plan in the long-standing recommendation that people include the "or any future version" language when releasing under GPL. The charitable view is that a project may start out when there is only V1, and another project under V2, and the projects are merged. The only way to do this without expressed consent from all contributors is if the V1 project included the "or any future version" clause.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
     Hints about the GPL v3 - (ben_tilly) - (15)
         Wouldn't that also apply to non-OSS licenses? - (drewk) - (4)
             Yes - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                 Sounds like the real choice in licensing is simplicity - (drewk) - (2)
                     BSD is simpler - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                         Hate to say this, but ... - (drewk)
         That would conflict with Freedom 0. - (ubernostrum) - (9)
             Why wouldn't he? - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                 I can think of one reason - (jake123) - (7)
                     That argument is not new - (ben_tilly)
                     RMS is far crazier than that. - (broomberg) - (2)
                         He was probably right - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                             (Un)intended consequences - (drewk)
                     That could bring up an interesting possibility. - (static) - (2)
                         That entirely depends on what your website does - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                             I hadn't thought of that. -NT - (static)

bash#_
82 ms