> people tend to be the ones who belief in free software as an issue of morality; they tend to prefer copyleft licenses as a result.
I don't believe in restriction. That's my morality.
>I don't do this whole web thing in any serious manner, but yes, I'm aware of it.
That explains a lot.
>But if you came up with a great scheduler implementation or some such, you wouldn't want the Linux kernel to be able to use it?
They can use it, they just can't relicense it. Frankly if there was some kind of humanitarian issue, I'd be open to discussion, but getting a new scheduler into the Linux kernel is a political issue, not a licensing one. Ask Con Kolivas.
>You wouldn't want gitorious to be able to use some useful library you've written?
They can use it, they can't relicense it.
> over 60% of open-source/free software is licensed under some from of GPL or LGPL
and most of it is trash. Why do I care? the stuff I use.
Me. That I use, on a day-to-day basis in my work is BSD/MIT.
GPL only touches tools/platforms, not actual code.
>If you licensed with a normal BSD, MIT, or similar license, a GPL fork wouldn't make the original BSD version go away
Fully aware. I still don't care.
> how many GPL forks of BSD projects are there?
Need I demonstrate how many times GNUists have stolen and relicensed BSD code before calling it their own, thus continuing the spread of their disease?
>Then just release it as MIT or BSD licensed.
I'll do as I please, thank you. You're welcome to find the nearest cliff and test a new form of human powered flight though.
>Do something that doesn't restrict the ability of people
I'd ask the same of the FSF/GPL fanatics. I wouldn't have to do this if they didn't exist.
> I said that your licensing is hostile to '"free software" folks'
And?
>Your license allows incorporation into proprietary software but restricts incorporation into the projects of the free software folks.
Doesn't restrict incorporation, just requires that it not be relicensed. They can package it in there however they like, they just don't get to rubber-stamp their STD on it.
I don't believe in restriction. That's my morality.
>I don't do this whole web thing in any serious manner, but yes, I'm aware of it.
That explains a lot.
>But if you came up with a great scheduler implementation or some such, you wouldn't want the Linux kernel to be able to use it?
They can use it, they just can't relicense it. Frankly if there was some kind of humanitarian issue, I'd be open to discussion, but getting a new scheduler into the Linux kernel is a political issue, not a licensing one. Ask Con Kolivas.
>You wouldn't want gitorious to be able to use some useful library you've written?
They can use it, they can't relicense it.
> over 60% of open-source/free software is licensed under some from of GPL or LGPL
and most of it is trash. Why do I care? the stuff I use.
Me. That I use, on a day-to-day basis in my work is BSD/MIT.
GPL only touches tools/platforms, not actual code.
>If you licensed with a normal BSD, MIT, or similar license, a GPL fork wouldn't make the original BSD version go away
Fully aware. I still don't care.
> how many GPL forks of BSD projects are there?
Need I demonstrate how many times GNUists have stolen and relicensed BSD code before calling it their own, thus continuing the spread of their disease?
>Then just release it as MIT or BSD licensed.
I'll do as I please, thank you. You're welcome to find the nearest cliff and test a new form of human powered flight though.
>Do something that doesn't restrict the ability of people
I'd ask the same of the FSF/GPL fanatics. I wouldn't have to do this if they didn't exist.
> I said that your licensing is hostile to '"free software" folks'
And?
>Your license allows incorporation into proprietary software but restricts incorporation into the projects of the free software folks.
Doesn't restrict incorporation, just requires that it not be relicensed. They can package it in there however they like, they just don't get to rubber-stamp their STD on it.