Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2007 21:32 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Thread beginning with comment 248664
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-06
GPL in effect IS a proprietary licence; GPL can take what ever it wants, but don't expect the ability to take from a GPL project - again, that isn't sharing or cross project pollination, its a giant sucking sound coming from one project.
CDDL proves that you don't have to have that sort of proprietary/exclusivity licence to protect your IP from being raided - and the simple fact is, time and time again, those who DO embrace *BSD for their proprietary code do not give back because they have no relevance to the main project.
They give back fixes, but if there is a feature which is exclusive to their piece of hardware, what do the larger community benefit from something that won't benefit them at all? How does open sourcing code which has no relevance to the project going to benefit the project itself beyond just adding *MORE* code to something.
Like I said, I'm confused; we have GPL advocates on one hand scream about sharing and open source and yet their licence does the exact opposit! it doesn't promote it, infact, Stallman himself said not to call GPL licenced software as 'open source'. There seems to be a great disconnect between those who advocate GPL and FSF software, and those who are actually the core of the GPL and FSF movement - the ones who actually created it.