World: r3wp

Uniserve is very nice, I have been using it to prototype/test before 
I upload to actual server.  It broke my heart it was gpl.  BSD is 
very good choice.  Free software should not be restricted, and GPL 
has too many of those.    makedoc/spec is the killer app,  and in 
that intensional programming vein is coursing all the best documentation, 
and REBOL  does a fine job of documenting itself because it is so 
semantic by nature.  To understand how to use a moderately complex 
system like a full-featured web server, it is going to be important 
to capture the thinking of those who wrote the code.  REBOL parsing 
allows all information pertaining to the code to be right there with 
the code,  and a function of  DO -ing anything.  the standard documentation 
scheme should follow how REBOL [] headers work, and simply have the 
makedoc embedded within the scripts.

but if you close free software, it is not free to your users, so 
restricted, which it should not be?

BSD is good.  GPL is not.

was all I was saying.  I don't mind that uniserv is gpl, but thing 
gpl incompatible with BSD

BSD allows jailing free birds. GPL forces to let them go free next 
spring :) and only if they want to go with their binary offsprings.

BSD->GPL works pretty well. GPL->special license agreement will work 
pretty well to. But jaillable software usually has to be paid.

what do you mean by jailable.  not a term I am familiar with regarding 
software.

For that matter, what do you mean by software being paid. Do you 
mean paid for?

no, I am saying that any software that purports to be "free" should 
not restrict my use.  It is not free if it forces me into a box.

it is coercive in the same way EULA is

jailable: taking free software, change a bit, close it. BSD.

paid: yes. goto DcKimbel, say "your Uniserv is wooonderfull!! How 
many bucks". I am sure you can make a deal and jail - uhm, close 
your project as much as you want.

But use has to be restrict somehow. either your use, or the use of 
your users. some people think its better to restrict nobody except 
the restricters. means you in this case.

very good.  crazy dual star that free as in spirit  <-->  free as 
in not paid.

BSD guys may think "ah, but you are a coder! much more like us. about 
the users, well.." ;)

GPL says nothing about "not paid". It says, if your * breaks  you 
can go to everyone who can repair *. be * car, refridgerator or some 
softwarre.

while closed means, you can go to the central commitee of **, politely 
inform them and hope they dont jail you.

yeah, well, I'm a hobbyist.  I write a lot of code that I don't mind 
people using however they like so long as they don

t bug me about it.

then GPL or BSD should make no difference to you?

well, it sorta does.  because what if I want to release something 
someday as an actual product, and I go digging around trying to figure 
out what is what and I find gpl in there alongside bsd.

If I would have known beforehand the restrictions that gpl would 
place not only on me, but that I would be forced to pass on. . .

that's a deal breaker for me and I bounce the gpl stuff.

not "free" enough in a hobbyist sense.

i guess that is why GPL forces you to make everything GPL up front.

you will not find GPL "somewhere" then.

yep, but I started coding long before I understood anything about 
licensing.

and anything longer than one page is done out of personal principle

if you make an actuall product, i guess your base contributors would 
like some money too.

the issue with free is not about money

to me

Personally, I like the dual GPL/commercial licenses, where you must 
pay money to be allowed to restrict your users. Either that or the 
Classpath-style GPL with linking exception, for those that don't 
care about the freedom down the line, but do care about contributions 
to the library itself.

Well, you said "To understand how to use a moderately complex system 
like a full-featured web server, it is going to be important to capture 
the thinking of those who wrote the code.". and then you want to 
force your users not to look at it?

BrianH, i agree.

what?

AFAIK the GPL-attorneys are thinking about the dual-license-line 
too.

I just use BSD for code I just don't care about at all, or for code 
that I want everyone to use, whether they are Jedi or Sith :)

ScottH - choosing one of two ways. either passing the freedom by 
giving your changes away, or to pay the GPL-part coder with some 
of the money you get. As you would do if you hired a coder to do 
that part.

I think that Classpath-style would be best for Uniserve, but that 
may be just me.

Or make a clear cut about which part you want freedom. as with classpath, 
or linux-kernel where you can run closed stuff on.

I wish I would not have said anything about licensing, but I saw 
uniserver on the list and it's gpl.  that doesn't mean BSD, which 
was part of the spec.  I like BSD MIT school of thinking.  My brain 
doesn't jive with GNUfree  the old free was just fine.

IIRC uniserve has some style of classpath. That is, it allows to 
add cgis etc not to be gpl. based on this "its on arms length" or 
something like that? not sure.

Bad example with the Linux kernel. Their license really doesn't allow 
that kind of binary linking, but that restriction is just not enforced 
that much because the linking is usually done locally.

The BSD-free, you are right, is old. at that time the GPL was standard, 
just not written. if you asked someone how something worked, you 
got answer, examples, etc. was a closed group, such programmers, 
no need to think big about licensing.

GNU can continue to develop the term "free" so long as they prefix 
all gnuWords with gnuPrefixes so everyone gnu:knows what one is gnu:talking-about

ScottT, if the REBOL powerpack spec doesn't allow GPL restrictions, 
then it doesn't. Good point.

No, linux allows explicitely running closed stuff on it. it does 
not allow closed stuff in it, there you are right. which relates 
to some video-drivers.

I agree about good point. but the posting said nothing about its 
gpl, but we want bsd. it started flaming against gpl, that was all. 
so i responded to that.. ;)

it was really just a passing thought

and I could have skipped straight to the documentation discussion.

its ok to have another opinion than me btw ;)