Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Rugby licnese changed

From: chris:starforge at: 18-Jan-2002 19:19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 #Friday 18 January 2002 14:24# Message from Brett Handley:
> > I have changed the license of Rugby from BSD to GPL to gain better control > > about its redistribution. > > All I can say is, please re-read the GPL, if you know it then please > re-consider your decision.
If you don't like him GPLing it, why not talk to him about you getting it under a different license? The GPL is the only well known license which allows the *author* to control who, where and how any commercial and/or closed source entity uses their code, something the BSD does the opposite of. If GPL is a problem for you company then talk to the author. If the author wants you to use it, then it ceases to be a problem (the GPL does not prevent individual relicensing) Then ask why you weren't going to talk to the author about royalties for using their code in your commercial product, or their opinion about it being used in a closed source project, in the first place. Because you could get it for free without asking? Then wonder why people use the GPL instead of BSD. Code released under BSD is open season for any company who wants to make money with your code and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. With the GPL it is possible to negotiate a license under which your code can be used commercially or in a closed product. That is the author's right. If Maarten left the code under BSD, who knows which company or group could nick it, bastardise it and sell it as their own (aside from Microsoft of course, not that they would do such a thing). IME a lot of the flak the GPL gets comes from companies who would much rather rip off individuals or groups of coders rather than negotiate terms. It's too much trouble for them to talk to programmers. It's not too much trouble for them to use their code of course. These companies rather have code they can use for free, without having to pay an experienced coder to write it. The GPL forces them to talk, and few of them like it. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a damn about people with that attitude, they deserve all the trouble they get. If they behaved ethically, they wouldn't have a problem (and don't give me that old crap about progrmmers using code without knowing it is GPL - the GPL states that code arried by it must say so in the comments at the top. Any programmer who can't read comments has no business programming). Computing Ethics is quickly turning into a sick joke. Chris - -- .------{ }-----. .---------------------------. =[ Explorer2260, Designer and Coder \=\ P: TexMaker, Draktar \ =[ All is well. We are not like the others. ]==[ Stack: EEOeOeOeTmTmDD---- ] - -- May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth with the Force of a Thousand Caramels. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see iD8DBQE8SHVQtwxr0HXns0wRAguhAJ40Y3FTCUCamRrVKzce+uHnQGyitgCg7geb GuV5LrMlp96suI7RtW0MBB4=XoR2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----