Re: future of quail
Julian Bradfield writes:
Er, that's what I said. If you include GPL code, and distribute
your
software, it must be under the GPL.
Clearly, it requires the consent and cooperation of the patient. Ie,
"virus" is too generic. We're talking about STDs here. "Was it good
for you, too?" :-)
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you
an
immoral pig and a thief? The whole point of BSD is to allow people to
use software freely, whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or
an FSF agenda, or just want to get on with the job.
C'mon, Julian, be fair. Surely you are aware that in fact some people
*do* talk that way, even today (even though you did no such thing,
others do). Use for profit is OK; use by the FSF is not.
IMO, it has quite a bit to do with the fact that the author and most
visible advocate of the FSF agenda is among the first to use words
like "immoral" and "thief", not to forget "backslider",
"hoarder",
"slavery", and "traitor". That's not David, but I'm not
surprised
he's had to deal with the spatter when that kind of mud hits the fan.
However, there was also, historically, quite a bit of bitching and
moaning about Linux borrowing stuff from BSD kernels while the reverse
was not permissible under the GPL. So what's permitted by the license
and what's expected of advocates of software freedom are not the same,
not limited to the FSF.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta