Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> > Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> > common.
> 
> Doesn't make it right...

No, not at all, I was just attacking a flawed argument. :-)

> and I'd prefer a license that doesn't make companies think they have
> to go to these lengths to use it while protecting their own code. As
> far as I'm concerned, they have the right to do whatever they want
> with their own code, unless it's a modification of CSDL that they
> are distributing. The GPL seems to be intended to force every piece
> of code to be GPL'd.

Yes, and since you feel like that, GPL'ing your work would of course
be nonsensical. (LGPL is an entirely different matter though, but
still it's your choice.) I'm glad you seem to be convinced to use a
license which makes your software free - the rest is just details
(some of which it is worth getting right, such as being
GPL-compatible, but mostly just details).

> > Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)
> 
> No, but there's a very good reason for that... ;-)
> I did pay for my copy of Mac OS X.

It seems I'm not too lucky with my examples...

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message