On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:21:49PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > I suspect John was talking about the second (he's speaking about /a/ nasty > > > BSD license, not /the/ nasty BSD license). > > > > > > Many people prefer BSD-sans-ad-clause to the old BSD license. > > > > Based on my thousands of arguments with John on this very subject many > > many times over, I would say that his problem with the BSD is the former > > as he also considers the X license to be "nasty" because it can be > > exploited. > > Precisely. While I am no big fan of the advertising clause, I view it > as far less insidious than the vulnerability to being adopted and made > non-free. And not to rehash old arguments too much, I still believe that if you are worried about that, I have not seen a license other than the GPL which prevents both your work from becoming non-free and which makes any attempt (the LGPL included) to prevent your work from being used by a non-free work. If you are worried (and you may have good reason to be) the GPL is currently the best license there is for you and I urge you to use it wherever you feel you need it. I don't believe this makes BSD or X licensed code inherently evil or anything like that. You're free to argue that point with me if you like, but please leave the list out of it. We can argue till we're both blue in the face I suppose. => -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Diziet> Fuck, I can't compile the damn thing and I wrote it !
Attachment:
pgpnNJ8CyjqIy.pgp
Description: PGP signature