Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Moo

Author:David Adams
Posted:8/25/2000; 12:35:33 PM
Topic:A softer GPL?
Msg #:20238 (In response to 20235)
Prev/Next:20237 / 20239

However, to be ethical, a license must not contain the GPL's poison pill. The purpose of the GPL is to advance a specific agenda which is harmful. It is therefore never appropriate or ethical to use it. I fear that too many developers have followed, like cattle, along Stallman's path without recognizing where it leads.

Since you brought up the ethics of the GPL again, I'd like to mention that you still haven't answered my question I posed in A New Public License:

The fictional Dave's Wacky Public License (DWPL) says, in essence: "You can use this code, give it away, or modify it, but only if you make your changes available under these same terms or get my permission to do otherwise," but without the politics of the GPL.

So what's unethical about this license? Is it unethical for me to claim that you can't use my code as a basis for commercial software products you make? If the purpose of the DWPL isn't "to advance a specific agenda which is harmful," as you attribute to the GPL, but rather to protect my rights as the hard-working sweaty programmer, how is it unethical?


There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:16 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.