> Er.. > > First: this contradicts your statement about BSD software being relicensable.
sorry, i should have said "some licenses"; namely most existing copylefts. > Second: even the GPL doesn't force you to put the derived work under the > GPL -- except for the part which is already GPL, the rest of it could > be placed under the BSD license. however the gpl does clearly say that means that the work as a whole must be under the gpl, which makes it necessary to package modifications separately which is a nuisiance. (picture for example the modifications being binary-only... you'd have to distribute patches against a compiled binary, or supply additional object files, and require extra linking.) this is partially the point, because most of the time the license you would want to put modifications under would be proprietary and that's what the gpl aims to prevent, but it kinda shoots itself in the foot by thwarting cooperation between free software. > What's unfair about a free software license that's not also unfair about a > non-free software license? Or are you suggesting that we work to repeal > copyright law? no, non-free licenses are also unfair -- but just because they play dirty doesn't mean we have to too. it's the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" deal. > Free software licenses don't prevent someone from making his work > proprietary. not all of them -- but a copyleft *does* prevent work based on it, even work that was undreamed of by the original author, to be free, and i think that people should be free to do the wrong thing. (which means of course that i will never pester you for making copylefts. i will merely attempt to educate you, and gently at that, because i really hate pushy ideology salesmen.) > I guess I'm an example of someone who disagrees with you. See > above. vive la difference... > That's not what Richard was suggesting. He was reminding people that > the author of a GPLed work can resolve the conflict between the GPL and > a non-GPL free license simply by granting additional permissions beyond > those granted in the GPL. i think we're talking about different things here... look at his essay about the npl at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html. > Er.. the GPL already has this. um, no? 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. --p.
