Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est
Posted Jun 17, 2004 10:53 UTC (Thu) by angdraug
In reply to: Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est
Parent article: A look at SpamAssassin 3.0
For my part, I'm glad to hear SA is in the good company of the Apache folks. License schmicence. Since when is the Apache group evil?
I'm afraid since before I've started to pay attention to them. Besides, there are no good and evil folks, there are good and evil deeds, and that is exactly this "schmicence" attitude that is a problem for me.
And IMNSHO there are plenty of licenses that are incompatible with the GPL that are quite OK, like the Creative Commons ones, the BSD license, etc.
I think your IMNSHO should be humbled down to IMHO:
Creative Commons are far from being OK, they are not even DFSG-compliant,
BSD without advertising clause is GPL-compatible and that is why it is OK.
There's no sense in dogmatically insisting on the GPL when there are actual good reasons under varying circumstances to use other licenses.
Each time GPL is discussed, someone always has to stich the "dogma" label on it. You know what? It's wrong, there are plenty of practical reasons to fight for GPL-compatibility.
In Red Hat 7.1, released in 2001, 63% of the software (counted by lines of code) was licensed under GPL and LGPL. In Sisyphus, current snapshot of ALT Linux, 77% of 5500 packages are licensed under GPL and LGPL. Now, isn't it important that it remains possible for two thirds of free software to be able to link and exchange code with the remaining third?
to post comments)