On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, John Lines wrote: > By being the first, and most frequently mentions Free Software license the GPL
Survey says...Bzzzt! The GPL is a latecomer in the free software arena. > has become the best known. Most authors of free software are not as interested > in licensing as the members of this debate. They just stick some words about > the GPL somewhere, often dont bother with including a copy in their source > distribution, and get on with the interesting coding part. They don't have to: you only need the text of the GPL to copy, not to originate. > I am sure many of these authors would be just as happy with the Artistic > license > if they thought it would give them less hassle. Nothing's stopping them--I see no gun-wielding hordes forcing the GPL on authors. > In addition the copyright has been assigned to FSF in only a small number of > cases. It may be that, to save wasted intellectual effort from all concerned, > the maintainers of packages where copyright has been assigned to the FSF > should > include a copy of the GPL in those packages > (as an indication of willingness to maintain good relations with the copyright > holder - rather than as a precedent) > > This would free up the FSF lawyers to look at more interesting questions, > such > as, > if I am installing 20 servers with RedHat Linux, how many copies do I need to > buy ? Zero. It might help if you actually READ the GPL... Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Redmond anymore... > (Note that replies on RedHat licensing are off topic for Debian Policy, so > mail solely on that direct to me only please) So is unsupportable idiocy: thus your entire missive was OT... > John Lines > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- <a mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Who is John Galt?</a> Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. -- Ferenc Mantfeld
