On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 03:10:32PM -0500, Dale Botkin wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, wouter van ooijen & floortje hanneman wrote:
> >
> > > > Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
> > > > objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
> > > > list?
> > >
> > > I would love it when all posting to the PIClist were either GPL or public
> > > domain. That would free up a lot of problems when using hints, code snippets
> > > and the like in commercial code, books etc. Maybe I should start by
> > > including such a noticde in my signature?
> >
> > Have you read the whole GPL? I'd never use it for anything.  Just my own
> > pesonal opinion, I think it goes too far.  If someone uses some of my code
> > that I have released, I don't CARE if they release their improvements or
> > modifications to it.  Sure, I'd like to know, but I won't force them to
> > disclose all.  The GPL has, I think, a reputation as this great enabling
> > share-with-the-world license that is somewhat undeserved.
>
> I think the only thing that untrue is this last statement. The reputation
> as a share-with-the-world license is well deserved. Its true restriction
> is exactly as you stated, source for code and its derivitives must be
> shared if distributed. The force of that restriction causes a wide
> proliferation.

Maybe I was unclear on that point.  A lot of people I have listened to
seem to think the GPL is a perfect open-source license, and think
everyting should be GPL'd.  I disagree.

If I'm going to modify some open source software and release the source,
that's great.  if you're going to do it and release the source, that's
great too.  If you're going to spend thousands of hours and dollars
improving the software and sell it without the source, well, who am I to
argue with that?  I think you should be able to.  If I want the same
functionality or features or improvements, I am always free to do the same
thing you did -- on my time, with my money.

> BTW the license you're looking for Dale is the BSD license. It pretty much
> has no restrictions on redistribution or modifications. It prefectly fits
> your desire of a lack of control on deriviatives.

Yep, I've seen it/used it.  I like it a lot better.

> > OK, I'll pull on my fire-retardant suit now and grab a CO2 extinguisher...
>
> No need. Your opinion is prefectly valid AFAIC and your facts are right
> on the mark. The GPL is restrictive by enforcing sharing.
>
> I still haven't found the license I want. GPL for noncommercial use, royalty
> when packaged and sold. It doesn't exist and IANAL so I really can't write one.
> So generally I mark my code for noncommerial use. Works so far.

I call mine "free for noncommercial use" but include an email address for
those who want to license it for comercial use.  Works fine.  I figure if
it needs a lawyer's official stamp of fees to be good enough for the
prospective user, he'll probably swipe it anyway.  It's worked for me.

Dale
--
A train stops at a train station.  A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body