licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache

[Jeffrey Kesselman]

BTW... 'free' is a vauge and funny term.

I'd argue that BSD and Apache are much freer then GPL because they
push no terms upon the users.  Others would probably argue that GPL is
"more free' because what it pushes on the users is that they must in
term make their code free.

Its all in how you look at it and where your politics lie.  I've
honestly always been somewhat uncomfortable with the coercive nature
of GPL. though in the specific case of the PD server it matched
exactly what I wanted.

JK

On Dec 28, 2007 7:41 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman <jeffpk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 6:37 PM, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> >
> > I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which
> > develops and supports free software for companies that use it.  (It's
> > now part of Red Hat.)  Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2,
> > GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the "Four Freedoms" of its users and
> > developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .  The
> > practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software
> > can't take it proprietary.
>
> Well this has some otehr practical implications.  You might actually
> want to support proprietary development for various reasons.
>


-- 
~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~