[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL preferred here ? was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Low cost computing for small

From: Nick Mailer
Subject: Re: GPL preferred here ? was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Low cost computing for small business - Comments wanted
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:50:03 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.25i

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:00:59AM +0100, Simon Waters wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 
> > Philip Hands <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > That is too restrictive --- you should say "Free Software" and probably
> > > use the Debian Free Software Guidelines:
> > 
> > Why not use the Free Software Definition from FSF?  Oooh, look: how many
> > angels can we get on the head of that pin?  ;-)
> I'm not a licensing guru, but the government software track got
> me thinking.
> I thought perhaps a licence where companies can incorporate the
> free software into non-free products would be more appropriate
> politically, but RMS is right, this just means the free would
> always compete with refined versions of itself.
> Should the AFFS prefer GPL style licences ? 
> Whilst in some senses all software that meets the FSF conditions
> is equally free, it is not all equal in terms of how it
> encourages the spread of free software.
> For these reasons I think we should.


The AFFS should unambiguously prefer copyleft to any other Free
licenses; I think we've seen all too clearly what organisations can do
to and with BSD-licensed software to pretend to be agnostic.
There are many Free Software licenses which provide you with freedom.
Only copyleft (as embodied by the specific example of the GPL)
guarantees this freedom. The distinction is essential.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]