|There's more than one way to do things|
Re: Re: (kudra: tmtowtd free software licensing) Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPLby mdupont (Scribe)
|on Jun 25, 2002 at 07:39 UTC||Need Help??|
You wrote :
Well, as I've understood, that's GPL's problem, not BSD's problem. The BSD license is more free (the only true free software is public domain software) than the GPL.
Why is that GPLed problem, look at the Mono/Pnet issue? The Pnet guys can use the MONO libs (X11), but the Mono cannot use the Pnet libs(GPL).
The BSD license is not producing any C compilers is it? partly because any major investment would not be protected.
Even the Mono C# Compiler is GPL to protect it.
If you can point out any MIT/X/BSD licensed C, C++, Java, and Perl parsers, full semantic analysis and code generation tools. Dont forget Make, Bison, Flex and BASH. They would all be targets for extracting meta-data from.
Then we can use those tools then I can just forget about making interfaces to the gcc and uses these truly free tools.
You wrote :
Who am I to put restrictions on the code I release?
Who am I to put under BSD what is given to me under GPL?
The GPL is succesful because it creates and End to End set of tools, not because it because anyone can take the results and run with them.
Anyway abigail, I do have respect for you opinion, mine is just different. :)