[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

From: Thufir Hawat
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:19:37 GMT
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:

> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't "free" at
>>> all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
>>>  programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into
>>> federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in
>>> software licensing as a religion.
>> Why not extend that argument to the conclusion:  don't use any license
>> at all.  Sqlite is public domain.  You're free to develop public domain
>> software on your own.  However, you're not likely to
>>  ever see a penny for your efforts.
> You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish.

I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical 

> Short of
> waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place
> a work in the "public domain".

Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a 
layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing.

> You must somehow unequivocally and
> publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would
> probably disagree with that broad assertion.
> I was comparing "Free Software licensed code" and "permissively licensed
> code". So what is the point you wish to make?

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. 
And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother?  Just license 
it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain.  That's the conclusion 
which can be drawn from your argument.


reply via email to

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