Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
>> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
>> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
>> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
>> others the same rights the GPL offered you.
> 
>   There's a contradiction in there.
> 
>   If you *have to* comply to something before you can distribute, that
> nullifies the claim that you are free to use it in *any way* you want.

True.  But I stated my claims in 3 ways:  first about usage (you can use 
GPLed software in anyway you see fit), second about private 
modifications (no need to release modified souce code under GPL) and 
third about released modified GPLed work.  No contradiction when in context.

>   GPL is, in fact, rather restrictive. For example, if I make a project
> under, let's say, the MIT license, I have to make extra sure that I don't
> include *any* GPL'd code in it because that would be againt the GPL license.

True.

>   Just the fact that you can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed
> program but not the other way around tells a lot about which license is
> more "free".

The MIT/BSD license does nothing to protect such freedom.

If a MIT open-source project stales and dies out and all hosts of the 
original code die out and only survivor of said original code is a 
heavily modified closed software that led that project to die out by 
providing proper marketing and more developers to make it a much better 
product, then you are... well, screwed?

And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their closed 
products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and pissing 
and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.

The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
and also the rights of the original developers to it.

It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use 
and modify.  I take it over any permissive license anyday.

Post a reply to this message