Re: License Choice

Bal Oney <bal@xxxxx> écrivait news:a2043$438bbc21$438d00d7$3920
@ALLTEL.NET:

> Choosing an open source license depends on how you define free,

Yes.

> and
> free to me means no one will ever have to pay to use free software.
> The GPL and LGPL both try to guarantee this type of freeness.

To you, yes. But this is only a - not necessary - side effect
of the GPL mouvement.

Initialy, the GPL was invented to guaranty that Open Sources
could remain open forever. You are perfectly allowed to _sell_
Projects including GPled Sources, for example, as long as the
GPL Sources are provided inside. There are many ways to make
money with GPLed Apps, and many examples of this oportunity,
including from the Crime&Co Companies (say, IBM).

Second, the GPL guaranties the users right of taking the Open
Sources, and to modify them, either for private use, or for
public distribution, under the very evident condition that
the whole Sources remain GPL. (What ass-holes of the Randall
Hyde camp are used to call "the virus properties of the GPL).

:)

Third, there are all of the ethical considerations, and this
point is the most "discuted". Some (like me), push the logic
to its natural end, and say clearly, that the GPL Mouvement
is a politicaly left-wing mouvement, which purpose and goal
is to fight against the major companies, who want to take
control on public liberties, on culture, and on Democratie.
Some others - most, infact - are in the opinion that the GPL
is just the GPL, without ethical and political implications.
Which is, IMO, a complete negation of logic.

You have a brillant example, of this deny of any kind of
logic, for example, when seeing some Linux-dedicated Pages
providing references to Master Pdf, for Linux Assembly,
whereas the insane stinking snake never contributed to
anything for Assembly, and regulary fought against the
volunteers working for the Assembly Rebirth, against the
Open Sources Mouvement, against the GPL, dreaming sweet
dreams about having the ReactOS Project sued and killed
by MicroSoft, and so on..., and so on..., and so on...

[Point "Third" is the exact reason why RosAsm is released
under double License, in order to ensure that the logic,
ethic and politic implicit implications of the GPL will
not be negated]


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: License Choice
    ... >> Choosing an open source license depends on how you define free, ... >> The GPL and LGPL both try to guarantee this type of freeness. ... the GPL was invented to guaranty that Open Sources ... assembler is for Win32 systems only. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: sorted equates member-groups
    ... >> who also took care of reviewing RosAsm License... ... The Open Sources Mouvement purpose is to provide Sources ... "Master-Guess-Who" ever did. ... GPL, and _evidently_ in order to try to fight against ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Problems about license
    ... no open source license will fit. ... away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution ... with the GPL as the open source license. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: License Choice
    ... >>Does your favorite open source license follow these rules? ... Not only does the GPL allow me to charge for GPL'd software, ... license because too many programmers are afraid that someone else might ... The best solution, of course, is "public domain". ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: How do I write a data DVD without K3B or its utilities?
    ... cdrecord which may be capable of burning CD-Rs but fails with DVD±R. ... The Debian developers got into a pissing match with Jörg Schilling ... it is an approved open source license. ... It's that combination of GPL and CDDL and the fact that the tarball isn't ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)