That's not quite true. Consider, for example, Larry Wall's "Artistic
License", used for Perl. That's entirely open. In fact, it's more
open than the GPL -- but that openness is a kind that those who believe
in the GPL generally don't like (open to use w/o license infection).
> Troll could change the license on a dime and leave all you KDE
> lovers out there with the option to either change Window Maganers or
> pay them money.
That's not true at all. Each version of Qt, when it is released with
a given license, is usable according to the terms of that license in
perpetuity. Future versions may be more restricted (and no, I don't
expect that, either), but that doesn't change the fact that (e.g.) Qt
1.32 will always be usable for free software development.
> Under the GPL the amount of open ("free") code in the world can only
> increase, that's the beauty of it.
That's _a_ beauty. But I think once we leave the details of what is
allowed and start talking about what is good, we should probably
adjourn to gnu.misc.discuss.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@pobox.com>
"Nice shooting, Zanthar!" "Thanks, Denise." // MST3K
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu