Re: Signatories to the Declaration of Software Freedom

[Indraneel Majumdar <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Even though I've had to distribute my proggie under GPL since there is an
included binary, I'd actually prefer the BSD style licence (or at least
the LGPL). Maybe that's one of the reasons why LGPL was born, even the
Maestro (RMS) had to think of the days when no one would be able to
replace him. Well, what then? The GPL does require enough people with
either large public grants or enough free time to code. Since that is
rare, and companies are not willing to spend money for employee's
principles (and even the economy does not work that way) nor refrain
from extracting the last coding-potential (or time), how does the GPL
survive in the long run? Probably the only way I can see GPL code
surviving is when one provides customised solutions as is happening at
sourcexchange.com but there too is a plethora of licence choices. The GPL
will survive if you want to take precautions that no-one can (mis)use your
code for their own profit or if there's a (big, black, bad, mad ) bull on
the other side of the fence that you just can't help hating enough but
which somehow has the whole meadow to romp on (while you're left on the
dusty highway). It is definitely not a licence written with the code as a
living entity (sorry, I'm a biologist). An open licence like the BSD gives
the code chance to adapt to any environment thus ensuring it's survival,
rather than ensuring survival of the licence (GPL) and the code getting
lost with disuse. GPL will always survive since hatred always will but the
code might not. In the case of a more free licence the code will survive
even if the licence might not. I guess that's what is meant by freedom and
setting your source free.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
> Why are you GNU lovers so much keen to bite a critic's head off
<snipping off a huge effort>

-- 
http://www.indialine.org