> Well, the whole point of FreeDOS existing at all is that MS dropped > the ball, and they wanted a free alternative that they could update > and share freely.
... which does not necessitate strong copyleft, as we all know. It also does not necessitate that language choice, actually. I'm aware of pragmatic reasoning for both though, you merely didn't make it explicit here. > GPL isn't bad, > per se, just annoying, too long, and I'm tired of reading endless > arguments about its finer points (just code, damn it, screw the > license, who cares? just make it public, free for all, it's not > munitions, for freak's sake, lighten up, blah). This is not at all how I would criticise the GPL, any variant. > While you and I may prefer BSD-ish licenses for various reasons (esp. > since if a developer hates the GPL, they won't contribute at all, > which seemingly defeats the point), the majority of enthusiasts by far > prefer and use GPLv2, esp. here in FreeDOS (hi, Jim!). It's amusing, actually. I /should/ prefer copyleft. I'm aware of the involved trade-off, regarding (conceptually intended) individual and collective freedoms, or that is, (more directly) freedoms as experienced by a specific recipient against freedoms associated with a specific text. Copyleft appears very much like an ingenious compromise that I should appreciate. And yet intuitively it just doesn't feel right. I've not yet found anyone who could convince me to overcome that. Regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
