"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980c287$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Jim Henderson wrote:

> >>>>   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> >>>> restricting.

> >>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
> >>> underlying goal.

> >> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
> > restrictions,
> >> or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?

> > Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in
the
> > bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection
to
> > authors who don't (!?) use it.

> So you're agreeing. The GPL protects the freedoms of the author using the
> GPL

So far, I do agree.

> at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license.

This part is absolute nonsense. It's the MIT license that protects the right
of the author that is using the MIT license. Just like it's GPL license
that's protecting the rights of the author using the GPL license.

GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
license. It's absurd to claim something like that, so I don't understand "at
the expense" part.

> And  the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with the
code.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
wants. If the author wishes least restrictions upon the users, he won't pick
MIT either but release his code to public domain.

Post a reply to this message