[UFO Chicago] WCLUG on Thursday, January 2

[Crow Leader]

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike McCune" <mmccune@attbi.com>
>To: "Crow Leader" <kkanno@users.symmetric.net>
>Cc: <ufo@ufo.chicago.il.us>
>Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 1:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [UFO Chicago] WCLUG on Thursday, January 2


>> >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 BSD
>> >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 license
to
>>
>> How is this a problem?
>>
>> >the GPL. Some programmers (like transgaming) would use the code but not
>>
>> And this wine license switch made the project better how?

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

You mean like all the different linux distributions? I don't see any
duplicated efforts there at all. No compatibility issues either. It's sort
of sad there are more linux distributios than versions of windows. This
highly fragmented effort sounds like a good one for sure.

>>
>> >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-ware
>> from scratch to get around it.

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

I though "free" software was the best. Please explain different levels of
"free" as in "free" vs "free with strings attached".

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

>>sounds like a lot of wasted effort. MAybe I should make my own linux
distibution. I like reinventing the wheel.

>> Proprietary is not always bad. IBM RS/6000 servers are quite proprietary,
>> 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
>the licensing. I'm sure you IBM wouldn't mind if you used AIX source code
in
>your programs.

I don't need to. AIX is an operating system. I don't need their code. An OS
is the abstraction layer between hardware and software. IBM does a good job
fixing their own code, I don't need to waste time cleaning it up myself. I
guess this is a bad thing, something done right the first time where a user
does not need to meddle non-sto pto get results.

KEN