From: Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <jupp@...>
Date: 2003-07-12T08:40:36+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: GPL - was Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

Saluton!

* Austin Ziegler; 2003-07-11, 20:40 UTC:
> Licensing is orthogonal to development methodology. While open
> source programs are *more likely* to be "bazaar" development
> methodology, and closed source programs are *more likely* to be
> "cathedral" development methodology, the choice of licence does not
> guarantee a particular development methodology.

There is no strong corelation but there is at least *some*
correlation so there is no orthogonality.

> Two points should be made. (1) A selling company must give the
> source to the customers

Note that they must only hand out the source if they explicitly ask
for it. They need not distribute it with the binaries.

> One of the conditions of the GNU GPL is that you cannot encumber
> redistribution. In this way, it's a good thing.

Of course this depends on the point of view.

> The practical problem with an "ask for permission" scheme is that
> it depends on your contact information being constant ... even
> after you die. That'll happen, right? So if you've died with an
> "ask for permission" scheme and have *not* specified in your will
> what will happen at that point, anyone who wants to use your
> SuperAwesome library will be SOL. Same if you change email
> addresses.

Note that a last will like 'After my death all programs I wrote may
be distributed without any restrictions' is dangerous because it
allows for a quick-and-dirty solution of all re-destribution
problems >;->

Gis,

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
-- 
N'attribuez jamais � la malice ce que l'incomp�tence explique !
-- Napol�on