On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 10/29/2000 6:08 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if
> > Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a network socket. Then the two
> > licenses can co-exist. Any code written to accept a Java interface after
> > that network socket speaks would negate the legality, so you are stuck
> > with something like http as your protocol. So why not just resort to
> > sharp sticks and rocks while we're at it?
> >
> > But then as someone just mentioned, it matters not a stitch what you or I
> > or Jon says, it matter what they lawyers say.
>
> Exactly...why not just simplify things for everyone involved and make it a
> BSD license. It is the lowest common denominator that still provides
> protection for receiving credit for the work you do (that is all that I
> personally think OSS authors should get).
Right: we aren't talking about fine wine, rare stamps or gold boullion
here. The code has to move and be moveable to live, to be of value.
> So far, I haven't even seen one valid excuse for using the GPL for JBoss in
> the first place. Bluntly, this whole debate is simply around the fact that
> Marc doesn't want to own up to the fact that he choose a bad license (the
> GPL) for his software and doesn't want to admit that he was wrong after
> everyone (including myself) told him that the GPL was a bad decision.
Well now that's reading in a motive. Let's not back anyone into a
corner: let's focus on a hypothetical common ground. Marc is trying to do
what he thinks is right. Jon has put forth some really good reasons why
it's not right. Marc has not really convinced me he's onto something in
his refutation of what Jon is saying.
> The *really* silly thing here is that Marc thinks that by using the GPL he
> is protected against certain things when in reality the GPL doesn't protect
> him at all from what he wants protection for!
Marc insists that GPL protects young code. I don't buy that either.
If I GPL to protect my young code I assume my code is vulnerable to
someone putting it into a commercial product and selling it where I would
miss out on the revenue? Pshaw! There is no viable motive there. And every
line of code I subseqently write undermines their commercial position.
Or another reason is because I'm afraid someone *gasp* will incorporate it
into their other BSD-style licensed project and steal my mindshare /
marketshare? So someone with more time and money and expertise
might do a better job? Isn't that what we want? Better code? Or is
_control_ over my crap-tastic code a better thing? I don't think so.
>
> -jon
>
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
