Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 515208
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.
** sigh **
I was not talking about GPL or BSD at all. FFS.
I was not talking about GPL or BSD at all. FFS.
And yet, the article is. So why can't I bring this back to being about GPL and BSD and how your rhetorical question relates to it?
I merely said it as something to think about, that is why I put the question mark at the end of the post.
Yes, and I gave an answer and reasons for that answer. Is that not allowed?
But no ... instead we just have vitriol.
Please point out anything I have said that was "vitriol". I was not aware that giving a definite answer is now "vitriol".





Member since:
2007-02-18
My counter argument is "Should you be allowed to stipulate this?"
Should you NOT be allowed to stipulate this? No one said open source was about "giving something away". GPL is not a charity. Never intended as such. If people open their code, why can't they stipulate the conditions that the code can be used? If people choose not to stipulate, they can. If people choose to stipulate, they can also.
Put the shoe on the other foot: what gives people the right to demand that people give away their code without conditions? Why should I, for example, be forced to open up my code with BSD licensing? Why can't I choose to open up my code with GPL? v3 even.
So yes, you should be allowed to stipulate the conditions your code should be used. People just have to suck up their sense of entitlement.*
* And no, GPL isn't a "sense of entitlement", because GPL doesn't require reciprocation from projects that don't use GPLed code.