Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 22:10 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 265471
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
Indeed. Besides, I'm always a bit annoyed if ppl call the LGPL 'more permissive'. Of course, the MIT and BSD licenses are also 'more permissive' than the GPL. The GPLv3 is less permissive than the GPLv2, even. But these restrictions are there to protect the freedom of the code. BSD code can be used to lock users out of the code, GPLv2 code can be put on a device with restrictions on modifications, and LGPL can be used in proprietary applications without ANY contribution back to the community.
How permissive is that? So saying 'KDE is less free' because it is based on the GPLed Qt is BULL. To protect freedom, you have to restrict those who endanger it. Everyone who denies that is just plain stupid.