Subject: Re: [Netatalk-devel] Re: Another reason to go GPL
From: Matthew Keller (kellermg@potsdam.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 12:01:00 EST
On 2001.03.28 11:10:51 -0500 "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." wrote:
> But, once GPL code from another author is incorporated in a project,
> a copyright owner who wishes to
> exercise any of his ownership rights is obligated to excise the code he
> didn't write. This obligation doesn't exist in the BSD license. Each
> iteration of a GPL project progressively entangles an author's copyright
> in this manner.
I think "excise" is a little harsh. GPL'd code I've written has
been incorporated into numerous projects that I've never even participated
in - And I think that's great. I don't want to control WHO or WHAT can use
my code - I just want to know that if anyone DOES use it, they are
obligated to use it within other free projects, and contribute any
improvements they've made. The code I've written under contract for
Netatalk (and thusly is closed) could rocket Netatalk quite far.
Unfortunately, most companies are lazy. If they don't HAVE to contribute
improvements, they won't. They'll keep them close and never let them out
(see the netatalk-devel archives on Sourceforge for more on that topic, I
don't want to rehash this again on this list).
> Sorry, Matthew, for posting again on this. I'll now drop it, as you
> asked.
I never asked for this issue to be dropped - We **NEED** to discuss
this. We **NEED** for everyone, pro/con/neutral, to not only understand the
differences between these licenses, but understand the ramifications of any
change as it pertains to Netatalk. I will NEVER ask you to drop it- I may
correct your misstatements or misunderstandings to prevent the spread of
FUD, but I'll never ask you to cease (and if I did/do, you have my
permission to slap me :)
-- Matthew Keller Enterprise System Analyst Computing & Technology Services Information Services Division State University of NY at Potsdam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:35 EDT