World: r3wp

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 ;)

The REBOL community in general seems to be more pro-BSD anyways, 
if only to accept use of the proprietary software that is REBOL itself.

AFAIK the community is a bit more BSD, but Carl not, and GPL means 
he will not use it. Thats a heavy argument.

yeah, I like the REBOL licensing schemes so far.  As long as Carl 
gets to do what he wants, then I'll be happy.

Yes. Also, rebol shows a lot of its source, even if officially closed. 
thats a lot of the "good old informal way" before GPL was needed. 
:)

and from what I've read, the only thing that really weighs on him 
is a bunch of soap opera caliber licensing discussions, which I can 
now say that I participated in. . .oh well.  guess I'll have to label 
that button hot, I generally avoid that discussion.

:))

Hey, at least it mattered in this case :)

(i guess licensing could be a very good base for a soap opera, thought 
:)

basicly Free means the author is free to choose the licence of his 
creation ... You can't contest the right of an author to protect 
his creation ... Offerring the  use and sharing the code is yet a 
great thing .. And with GPL you can work on the creation  as you 
want until you respect the licence terms and do not want to appropriate 
a creation that doesn't belongs to you ;)

property and robe are the base of our culture read the bibble it's 
full of those deprecated concepts ...

you can make free to use things and do not want people to claim what 
they don't have

invented

you are free to use free to modify free to distribute free to work 
with the author isn't that enough franckly ?

if we take MacOS X example we all know what is the gain for Apple 
but it is more blur to see what is the befefit that OpenBSD project 
writers retrieves of this experience. A part a spot light put uppon 
there project. But every a little serrious coder was yet knowing 
that freeBSD and OpenBSD were rock stable OS

I think we should consider moving licensing discussions to the licensing 
channel ...