Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 09:17:50AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 12/24/2016 09:03 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> > That's probably because YANAL.
> > 
> > (sorry, couldn't resist).

[...]

> Sorry, I just wanted to call attention to other opinions. Following the
> FSF is the safe and sane choice.

Seems we are both sorry :-)

No need (on your part, at least). It *is* true that there are different
opinions. Perhaps I've become a bit over-sensitive over the years,
because I get more and more the impression that there *is* a push to
spread FUD in this field (for example, I'm working at a mid-sized company
and my boss told us to keep clear of GPL software. When I asked him
why, he hand-waved and mumbled something about "liabilities".  Note that
we don't distribute any software externally, so GPL would not entail
*any* extra duties. I'm sure it's not bad intention on his part, but
I'm sure too that his opinion has been  shaped by the people he speaks
most to. And those are... some software vendors. *They* don't like
software freedom.

When I see said company at the same time making liberal use of free
software and doing the job of "useful idiots" for their vendors,
I tend to get a bit... sensitive :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlhec9sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZohQCcC5QAdx3vPnlz2/tZU9NNT/EJ
/FMAnAh6YhnpDZ9MfG9w/Xx2KYqoJkTB
=ts4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----