Re: The Anti-GPL fun

On May 6, 8:06 am, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Frank Kotler <fbkot...@xxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:cKk%h.413$HR1.284

[not to beat a dead horse, but I was thinkin' about this... your
therories about Randy and Nasm and the GPL may actually be
"counter-correct"... As you know (or maybe not) both of the original
authors of Nasm are anti-GPL. Simon doesn't care for it (his current
project, Putty, is MIT-licensed), but was willing to "go along" when
push to put Nasm under GPL came along (unix-folk, mostly, I think).
Julian is more strongly anti-GPL. He cooked up a "Democratic Public
Licence" - guaranteed to turn a development-team into a
debating-society, IMO - but an attempt to be "fair". He practially had
to be tortured into agreeing to LGPL. (I suspect he feels ill-used -
haven't heard much from him since) If Randy *had* chosen to use Nasm...
the original Nasm licence definitely wouldn't have minded "externally",
and I think "internally" would have been okay, or could have been
arranged. If that had happened, it might have provided ammunition for
the folks who *didn't* want Nasm GLPed, and Nasm might not be GPL
today... How's *that* thought grab ya?]

We can turn the problem any way up and down. There always remain
_two_ licenses:

* The GPL and compatibles.

Such as the GPL.

* The Anti-GPLs.

Such as the RosAsm public license.

Interesting how your product is licensed by both a GPL license and an
anti-GPL license, eh?
Does this mean your program is a bomb, about to explode? :-) Well, it
certainly has been a bomb, that's for sure. :-)
Randy Hyde