Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 11:53 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The first draft of the next version of the General Public License should be released for public comments in early 2006, according to a key player in the effort to modernize the foundation of the free and open-source programming movements.
Permalink for comment 16448
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: look, this is stupid
by sbergman27 on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:31 UTC in reply to "look, this is stupid"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

In general, I'm a fan of GPL licensing. It generally fits with my philosophy. However, even one person can have different views on what license is appropriate for different works.

For example, when Xiph (the Ogg Vorbis guys) made their reference implementation for Vorbis available under a BSD license, even RMS publically aggreed with their reasons for not using GPL. The intent was to take a format that nobody had ever heard of and get the widest possible market penetration. GPL'ing the reference implementation would have restricted the market.

In the same vein, I take issue with MySQL AB's use of the GPL for the MySQL libraries. LGPL would be more appropriate. The use of GPL is good for MySQL AB. But it is not the best thing for MySQL and MySQL's market penetration. Which, as a big PostgreSQL fan, doesn't bother me too much.

Some of you are probably thinking: Aha! MySQL with its GPL license is more popular than PostgreSQL with its BSD license! To which I say that sometimes having a marketing department outweighs differences in the license... and even the fact that the competitor's product is better than yours.

But for the most part, I think that an appropriate blend of GPL(v2)/LGPL serves the community's needs best.

GPL v3 is looking *too* restritive. And, in general, I think of the BSD as the "rape me" license.

Hmmm, is there anyone left here that I have neglected to offend? :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2