"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3c527a13@news.povray.org...
> > Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
> > the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
> > I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
> > License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
> > I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
> > don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.
>
> GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
> 3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
> unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in
commercial
> projects - afterall who would ever know

GPL doesn't even say you can't - they just say you have to include a copy of
the GPL, and tell people where on the Internet they can download the same
thing for free.

...Chambers

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.  If I am in error, please don't sue me.

Post a reply to this message