Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way.

["Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <lgcdutra@terra.com.br>]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:46:39 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> Has anyone ever asked why it is okay for RMS to suggest it is okay to
> invalidate another person/company license (BitKeeper is the example) yet
> become offended when their own license is to desired to be invalidated?

	Hmm... are you trolling?

	I case you are not, AFAIK RMS accepts any free software
license but prefers, in that order, the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL, any GNU
GPL-compatible copyleft, any GNU GPL compatile license, any copyleft,
any free software.  I don't quite understand what do you mean by
invalidate, but BitKeeper is not even free software, and no one is
arguing it is.

	BTW, RMS never gave that list of preferred licenses' ordering,
I am just extrapolating from his writings.  Anyone who knows better,
please tell so.


> Why is it that nothing but gpl can exist with gpl?

	Not true.  Anything that doesn't *add* restrictions to those
of the GNU GPL can coexist.


> Why is that a superior option to license under which follows the
> original spirit of GPL but goes further to promote the ideas of open
> source is frowned upon?

	Does it go further?  Exactly how?

	BTW, I for myself frown upon the license proliferation.
Hopefully the OSL will serve to reduce the number of different
licenses by consolidating all the GNU-hating camp.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro