Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!wnoise From: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu (Aaron Denney) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever Date: 29 Jan 1997 05:57:15 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 32 Message-ID: <slrn5etplt.4k3.wnoise@liquefy.ugcs.caltech.edu> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5qC7y0gTzDLB091yn@ibm.net> <32ECB442.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <Sia7y0gTzjYL091yn@ibm.net> <5clnn5$r2o@cynic.portal.ca> Reply-To: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: liquefy.ugcs.caltech.edu X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.0.0 (BETA) UNIX) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154978 comp.os.linux.networking:66544 comp.os.linux.advocacy:81596 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2106 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51308 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264221 On 28 Jan 1997 12:31:33 -0800, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote: > > My opinion is that if wanting to be able to use `free' code in a > commerical product is greedy, then putting your code under the GNU > licence so that others can't do this is spiteful. Others can use the code in commercial applications, they just have to include the source code... I agree, that in many cases they don't want to have the rest of their code then under the GPL. If you are just linking in a library, then the LGPL might work well. > >Likewise, I do not object to the GPL because I have little desire to > >jealously guard the code I write and hide it from others. > > In that case, stop jealously guarding your code with the GPL and > use something that gives the users more freedom, such as the Berkeley > licence. Better yet, make your code not property by putting it > into the public domain. The GPL does not guard the code, it just requires that the source and any changes made to it are freely available. The problem with the Berkely license is that any changes, bugfixes, etc. are not necessarily re-released. Berkely gives more freedom to the second user/modifer, but the GPL gives more freedom/better code to the third user, the fourth, and so on. -- Aaron Denney