"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns9519CDC5FC464seed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:40e436ae@news.povray.org Ross wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > i don't understand your stance on the GPL, well you didn't really
> > describe your stance. you just said you don't like it. what makes it
> > so apalling to you?
>
> To give you an idea, from their FAQ:
>
> "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."
>
> ...who am I to tell you, under what licence you should publish your part
> of the code?
>
>
> Ingo

(hypothetically) you are the developer of a GPL'd library I want to use.
that is good enough for me to abide by your liscense choice. If i don't like
it, I wouldn't use your GPL'd library. It's a reasonable tradeoff i think.
either i'd have to write my own, buy a license to use a library from a
vendor, or find one with less restrictions on use. none of these are any
better really, thankfully everyone is free to chose which suits them.

so do you use GPL'd software? or do you avoid it like the Plague? i'm just
curious how deep your feelings go.

personally, i believe that if someone is going to make money off work I did,
then I should get a little something in return, credit atleast. As far as I
know, BSD and MIT license have a clause similar to that in them (though the
end user may not even need to be using the license commercially in order to
be required to give credit?). If someone is not using my work commercially,
then credit would be appreciated, and if they aren't distributing any
results dependent upon my work, then i don't care if i ever hear about it.

Maybe my feelings are based in a subconcious desire for appreciation.
However, it seems that people would be tempted to abuse things found in the
public domain that aren't well known. By abuse, i mean repackage them
surreptitiously for personal gain.

Post a reply to this message