From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA00671; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:35:50 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA00714 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:35:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail2.hypermall.com (mail.hypermall.net [216.241.37.118]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h1NHZmH07595 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:35:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from [216.241.35.41] (helo=swordfish) by mail2.hypermall.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18n02V-0001zS-00 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:35:47 -0700 From: mgushee@havenrock.com To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:35:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] User library license Message-ID: <3E58A406.22073.804D795@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 23 Feb 2003 at 7:30, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remai wrote: > GPL eliminates commercial usage. Well, you'd better let Red Hat Software know about that. They have this bizarre notion that you can build a whole business around GPL'ed software. Fools. Or did you mean to say something a little different? > The best choices would be either the Academic Free > License or the Mozilla Public License. The Academic > Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted > by OSI lawyers. The MPL came about through extensive > user discussions over a long period of time I wonder what sort of users you're referring to? Personally, I find the MPL a monstrosity of legal jargon. Anyway, if you're going to assert that certain licenses are "best," your readers would appreciate it if you explained how you think those licenses benefit software authors and/or the community. The fact that a certain license was carefully designed (a claim that, I think, could be made for most open source licenses) doesn't by itself make the license good in general, or appropriate for any given project. > See also the "Fallacy of GNU" - > http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/13420.html Hmph. Takes a potentially interesting point and butchers it. The author's thesis is essentially: the GPL depends on copyright; copyrighted materials are subject to fair use; since the GPL hasn't been tested in court, fair use may undermine its supposed protections without our knowing it. Could be. But he spends 90% of the article illustrating general points that may or may not be relevant. -- Matt Gushee Englewood, CO USA ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners