Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

[Kenneth Burling <burlingk@example.com>]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:

>
> Why the FSF caved in on this reasonable requirement (and good
> programming practice!) I don't know.  Why the corporate participants
> in the GPLv3 revision discussion wanted the GPLv3 version is obvious:
> they wanted to be able to do to you what they're doing to you.  (I
> imagine the ostensible rationale was that the GPLv2 way of doing
> business was unreasonably costly and didn't have any perceivable
> benefits to users or enhance software freedom.  Bullshit, of course.)
>

*evil grin* Then again, there are people like myself that prefer to
use MIT style and BSD style licenses.  I know that (in the words of my
brother) they can "jack my code," but with those licenses it is a
given from the start.  :-)  That way I know to be happy with my copy
of the code, and with any changes that come back to me, and bugger all
with the rest. ^^;

Permissive licenses are much more stress free than licenses that
encourage litigation. ;P  I don't want to have to worry about whether
or not someone is doing something to close a version of the code, so I
just start with a license that allows that from the start. ^^;