Re: Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <r.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Arun Sharma: 

>If you think Cobalt is broken, don't use them. There is no cause and
>effect relationship between BSD license and Cobalt behavior.

No, but their license is a bit restrictive, is all I said.  Even
upgrading software on their boxen invalidates your entire warranty.  I
don't use 'em, but my (soon to be) boss uses 'em extensively :(

>> Suppose I have some skill which I make available free to others - if
>> others say "Suresh is kewl at that" (GPL)  then ok.  If ~I~ say "I'm the

Let me spell it out.  GPL - You don't stand on your rights and give away
your code to others, as long as others redistribute all their changes
under the GPL as well.  

Mutt is GPL'd - but nobody forgets that Mike Elkins is the original
author.  Lots of Mutt patches have been posted on LI.

>> best and I'll help you if you acknowledge that I'm the best when
>> you start helping others ..." (BSD) - that's not so kewl.

BSD - 

1. I write some software and distribute it under the BSD license

2. Someone patches it - he's ~forced~ to explicitly acknowledge me as the
author, and so on down the line .....

When I said "mixing / interfacing" I don't mean locking GPL'd code into
BSD programs, which then implies claiming credit for the ~whole~
thing.  This incompatible mindset is what makes most projects stick to one
license - either GPL or BSD.  

I meant it in the term of "using them together, making them work
together" - respecting each license.  Not taking somebody's GPL'd code,
patching it into BSD software and then locking it down under your name.

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian     | President, CAUCE India
r.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   | suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.india.cauce.org | Stopping Spam In India
--
A programming language is low level when its programs
require attention to the irrelevant.