gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:47 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (darwin)

RG <address@hidden> writes:

> In article <address@hidden>,
>  Raffael Cavallaro <address@hidden> 
>  wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
>> 
>> > Sure.
>> > 
>> > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
>> 
>> Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
>> you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
>> and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).
>> 
>> My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
>> regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
>> commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
>> non-GPL alternatives.
>
> That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation.
>
>> In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
>> terms of getting code open sourced.
>
> ...
>
>> I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
>> means of ensuring maximal adoption.
>
> Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone 
> shares this quality metric of yours.  Some people have goals other than 
> insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for 
> example.  Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force 
> others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity 
> in order to drive up prices.  One can argue whether or not this strategy 
> will be effective.  One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not 
> choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons.  But neither 
> the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori.

Indeed these are the questions.  I will have to think more about it, and
may be change the licence in the future (perhaps this year).

I also would like to contribute some of my code to some common library
and this would certainly require a change of license anyway.


But I need more time to think about it and work on it.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]