Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: June 19 2008,16:29
@mikshaw: Thanks for the links.
I'm no more a fan of GPL than I am of proprietary licenses -- both are products of the same mentality, different sides of a single coin. I accept everyone has a right to choose how to license one's own code and every one has a right to choose to use anyone else's software with respect to any restrictions imposed. It's all about what one is willing to put up with on either side (developer, user) of the equation.
If "freedom" is your goal, I think BSD is more about it than GPL. Dittos for MIT/X and other licenses that give users freedom without restrictions.
I comply with Microsoft's licenses because I respect their right to do whatever they want with their own code. I comply with GPL because I believe each developer has a right to choose it if he or she wants. I comply with Creative Commons regardless of variation because authors' and musicians' and artists' rights and wishes should be defended and protected rather than infringed. I respect RIAA and the copyrights they seek to protect against piracy for the same reason I respect Creative Commons.
With respect to this issue, we didn't choose GPL. Murga did. As far as I can tell, DSL hasn't violated the GPL. That's what matters here. If DSL isn't in compliance, that needs to be fixed. The way Murga has chosen to go about this really isn't very productive. He's the one who chose this route. Not the DSL developers or community.
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)