On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:54:51PM -0500, M Graff wrote:
> Peter P. wrote:
> > Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >> True. I think the kernel developers are all good people. IMHO the problem
> >> is the GPL license, not the kernel developers.
> > 
> > The GPL license is not a problem. Like *any* license it is a solution to a
> > problem, namely to that of unapproved theft (or 'lifting') of code from the
> > public domain towards proprietary applications which are then sold for a lot of
> > money by pigopolist companies. That is how and why the GPL was created, and that
> > is the purpose it serves best.
> 
> I have to strongly disagree here.  The GPL was created as a political
> statement, not to actually protect source code or the users of it.  That
> it does some level of protection is a by-product.

Now you've started a fire. The GPL is designed to create a free software
community by protecting code from those who do not want it to be free.

> 
> Open Source is not the same as "free" -- but the BSD license is very,
> very close to "free."

BSD is exactly the opposite of free. It's apathy. BSD vultures can take
code away from the BSD community, modify it, and contribute nothing back to
the community with impunity. The ability creates fractured code bases that
are incompatible with each other where one is free and the other
proprietary. 

Not a good situation.

> The GPL is a virus.

It is. I think the boundaries go too far in most instances. I believe that
the LGPL is close to the right mix: The infrastructure remains free while
users can make choices about the freeness of the code that uses the free
infrastructure.

BAJ
> 
> --Michael
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist