GPL considered what? (was: launchd for Linux)

[Michael Shigorin]

	Hi!
Sorry, my EU.02 too.

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The GPL is not a free licence since it places restrictions on
> > code -- you cannot make improvements to it that you aren't
> > forced to publish.
> While that's a popular misconception, it is in fact not true.
> You cannot [...]

In fact, you cannot "give absolute freedom" and thus have to
thade in something -- either developers' freedom or consumer's
(including all sorts of (re)publishers and developing users) one.

GPL sacrifices the latter, and I see no reason to do otherwise
for case when they can be done without compensating the costs in
any way or providing help in other ways.  As seen with the code
of SourceForge, even that is fatally liberal when the whole value
provided by modified code can be put behind the corporate
firewall -- i.e. when it's a /service/.

> > Anyway, that's just my devil's advocate side coming through.

Why not just tell it "shut up"? :-)
Guess you know better it doesn't lead anywhere good.

> > I do think the GPL is valuable, BUT, blind adherence to it is
> > NOT.

Blind adherence to anything is fanatism, and fanatism is often
fatal even to the better ideas or deeds.  It's due to this too.

> I used to use Pine myself; it's a nice, easy-to-use, basic
> mailer, albeit limited compared to more modern options.

Like mutt ;-)  I've went this path too and it's worth the trouble.

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20050506/4452187b/attachment.pgp