I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.

Steve

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 17:56 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
> 
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
> 
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

>> 
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>> 
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
> 
> 
> Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.

But your leaning toward LGPL says something ;=)

> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

personally i prefer bsd style licenses but the gpl has its right to exist. and while bsd ensures freedom for developers, the gpl is more targeted at users. it's a kind of politic statement and i understand the gnu project as an "user rights moverment".

please let this thread not turn into another bsd vs gpl flame war.

I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 17:56 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>> 
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>> 
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
> 
> 
> Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.
> 
> -- 
> Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.

What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?

"Steve Teale" <steve.teale@britseyeview.com> wrote in message news:j7v048$1ut1$1@digitalmars.com...
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>

Hah! Classic :)

Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone is enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of [L]GPL.

But I find those issues extremely frustrating, because there's two things I do like about GPL:

- From what I've heard, it bans usage in the creation of closed/proprietary platforms and devices. (I've come to have a enormous seething hatred for such things. Absolutely fed up with them.) I'm sure I could make a derivative of zlib/libpng/etc. that adds such a prohibition clause, but that would kick it out of the "OSI-approved" category, and would probably create a bit of a PR problem. (Plus I imagine I'd probably need to hire a lawyer to make sure it would actually work as intended.)

- Dual-licensing software under both GPL and paid-proprietary is feasable. I've never been able to think of a way to do the same with something more free like zlib/libpng/BSD/MIT/etc, and I think about that a lot. The only ways to get paid with those seems to be donations (would that ever even earn enough for a pizza? and are there any realistic options besides FraudPal *cough* I mean PayPal?) and paid support (which isn't always particularly applicable to every program; not everythng really needs much support).

It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.

I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.


The BSD license is the one I loathe and despise. It puts an annoying restriction on you, without gaining anything for the author.

A proprietary license gets the author money. I respect that.

The GPL gives the author his philosophy. I respect that.

The Boost or zlib licenses say "whatever". I respect that.

The BSD license says "whatever... but drop my name all over the place!"

That annoys me.

Dunno. I've never needed anything like it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
>> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
> 
> What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j7vb86$2ljc$1@digitalmars.com...
> It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
> be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.
>
> I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.
>
>
> The BSD license is the one I loathe and despise. It puts an annoying restriction on you, without gaining anything for the author.
>
> A proprietary license gets the author money. I respect that.
>
> The GPL gives the author his philosophy. I respect that.
>
> The Boost or zlib licenses say "whatever". I respect that.
>
> The BSD license says "whatever... but drop my name all over the place!"
>
> That annoys me.

That's the *OLD* "4-clause" BSD. That clause was recinded over a decade ago, resulting in the "3-clause" which says "don't use my name" (which is kinda weird...and it's even weirder that the 4-clause apperently said *both* "drop my name all over the place" *and* "don't use my name". Seriously, WTF?). But now there's also a "2-clause" one that removes that restriction too, rendering it equivalent to MIT:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php