[UFO Chicago] WCLUG on Thursday, January 2

[Mike McCune]

> >All licenses are restrictive. That is their purpose. The GPL is still =
a lot
> >less restrictive than any proprietary license I've seen.
> >
> >The BSD license is by nature not restrictive. The only problem with BS=
D
> >licensed software is that it has to compete with proprietary versions =
of
> >itself. This is the reason why Wine was changed from a BSD type licens=
e to
>
> How is this a problem?
>
> >the GPL. Some programmers (like transgaming) would use the code but no=
t
>
> And this wine license switch made the project better how?

The project is better because all changes go back into the original code.=
 In=20
this case, GPL was used to stop forking and duplication of programming=20
effort.=20

>
> >release improvements. The BSD license is great for users but not for
> >developers.
>
> The BSD license is good for everybody. I don't work for free and should=
 not
> have to give all my stuff away, or have to rewrite existing GPL virus-w=
are
> from scratch to get around it.

The BSD license IS giving your stuff away. There's nothing wrong with tha=
t if=20
that is your intention. Not everyone who writes open source or Free softw=
are=20
wants to have their effort relicensed and sold by someone else. That is w=
hy=20
there are so many licenses. It gives the programmer the right to release =
code=20
as they see fit.

The GPL will require you to rewrite code only if you release it under a=20
different license. This is more restrictive than proprietary software how=
?

>
> Proprietary is not always bad. IBM RS/6000 servers are quite proprietar=
y,
> and will junior any intel piece of shit server, anyday when it comes to
> reliability. I guess they must be bad.

The quality of code depends on the quality of programming and debugging, =
not=20
the licensing. I'm sure you IBM wouldn't mind if you used AIX source code=
 in=20
your programs.

>
> KEN