Re: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
> behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
third parties short of an explicit license.
David, please switch off your emotional commitment, and turn on your
intellect.
The world would be a very nice place if contaminants and viruses were
things that prevented their own redistribution. We'd never get ill, or
poisoned! The common cold would not exist!
The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
software makes that software have the GPL. The virus analogy is quite
simply a good analogy. Don't get hung up on the fact that some viruses
are nasty. Some are beneficial.
The viral nature doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I distribute
my own software under the GPL too, for convenience. But if anybody
asks me, they can negotiate other licences - BSD, for example. They
can even pay me money for it!
Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It allows
Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
It doesn't self-replicate, and it doesn't impose its own terms on
other companies' EULAs.
I really don't care what Windows users sign up to in order to use
their favourite operating system, and it's not relevant.
People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting and
bricking your computer.
Not my problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to use Windows.
If they don't mind, whom am I to tell them they should?
The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more
restricting
than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of course
GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
Do you deny that?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta