> > Why not consider making the Mozilla Public License the basis for the
> > new FreeGPL license? The one thing about the Mozilla Public License
> > is that it has been extensively reviewed and hashed out by both
> > Netscapes laywers and developers in the Open Source Community to the
> > point of agreement.
>
> FreeGPL is a very poor and misleading name for any new license.
I just came up with that name off the top of my head. Quit
beating me up over it, willya? Anyway, as several people pointed out to
me, the FreeBSD license does *not* cause the original code to become
unfree when someone makes proprietary modifications and takes them
private. I therefore basically reinvented the FreeBSD license with my
FreeGPL proposal. So, nevermind |->. I'm tired of discussing this issua
anyway - it looks like the Harmony project is the best way out of this
mess in any case.
> I thin
> the MPL has its place however
Certainly, but if everyone is going to write their own license it
will be confusing at the very least. Maybe this is necessary, though - it
seems that everyone has their own unique set of things they think a "free"
license should and should not do. I will be interesting to see what
comes out of this whole mess.
Jon
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html