Re: Re: [avr-chat] µC/avr crypto lib

[Bob Blick]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:44:08 -0700, "Rick Altherr" <address@hidden>
said:

> Be sure to tell that to the FreeBSD community.  BSD and LGPL do not  
> stifle contributions in any way.  GPL is just forcing people's hand to  
> its own detriment.  In many cases, a business will extend a BSD- 
> licensed library and contribute the changes back since their product  
> isn't the library but the product using that library.  On the other  
> hand, a GPL'd library can't be used in a commercial software product  
> at all, so those businesses will never contribute back since they  
> can't use the license to begin with.

Actually it's very simple. GPL is more open. It insures everything that
includes it will be open. BSD and LGPL are, by definition, less open.

If you consider that to be a bad thing, then it is your opinion based on
your point of view.

If someone is paying me to write code, it's licensed how they want it to
be licensed. 

If I am writing code for myself, I get to choose. I choose GPL and I
have my reasons and they work for me.

Lots of projects have multiple licenses one of which is GPL and the
other is commercial. Even big companies do it, like Trolltech with QT
licensing. It works for them. Maybe I want to be as big and rich as
them? How are they making a mistake? I don't see it as a mistake.

If you want "most open" you choose GPL. Anything else is "less open",
including public domain, because that can be used in code that becomes
closed.

But if you want "less open" you choose other licensing. And that is what
you say is best. What you choose is fine with me, it's yours to choose
and you have your reasons. What I choose is my choice.

Cheerful regards,

Bob



-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free