On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree. > The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred > the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In > this situation it's quite reasonable that you would abide by the conditions > I've chosen for the stuff you're using. If I want to customise some of your code, I agree that it's reasonable for me to abide by whatever license you chose. But if I want to add something completely new (say, a new module for emacs), the code for which lives in new and separate files from your code, why should you be able to dictate to me what license I use? Your answer will no doubt be "no one is forcing you to add that module to my program", and you'd be correct. But then we all potentially suffer because we can't use my new functionality. All the above is, of course, hypothetical, becuase there's no way I'd put myself in that situation in the first place. I think it's wrong for me to dictate license terms to other people. When I publish bodies of work, I want people who change my code to make their changes publically available, so that the community as a whole can be enriched. But if someone else wants to add functionality (in the form of new files), I object to the notion that I can dictate to them the terms under which they license their code. In short: if you modify MY code, you must abide by my choice of license. If you contribute new files to my program, they YOU get to dictate the license (provided, of course, that your license allows combination with mine). > 'Viral' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I say, What, prey tell, would be your term for something that spreads to without choice? > associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns), it seems > you should just admit that you personally don't happen to like this clause of I personally don't like this clause of the GPL. But the fact that it has been "associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns" doesn't make it (the word viral) an inaccurate description. > the GPL (which is designed to protect users from familiar catastrophes). But > many do, or they wouldn't deliberately choose this license. No, the GPL was written to further the FSF's cause. And I submit that many of the people who chose the GPL for their code don't really know why they're doing so, apart from the fact that it's a well-known open source license, and "everyone else does it". -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
