Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#2Clever.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#3The GPL is a mistake.
I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#4The GPL is a mistake. I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
> I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
There's different interpretations of which is which.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#5The GPL is a mistake. I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
> I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love. There's different interpretations of which is which.
Seriously?
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#6The GPL is a mistake. I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
If BSD-licensors wanted to give people freedom, they'd release code into the public domain.
The BSD license's requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code. Some BSD license variants additionally restrict freedom by requiring certain notices to be displayed during program execution, or restricting what can be said about derivative copies.
BSD license advocates are just as dogmatic as GPL license advocates. The GPL is simply a better dogma if you want to balance the freedom you give other developers against the potential for those developers to take advantage of your code by selling compiled or obfuscated derivative works without contributing anything back. If you don't care about whether your code gets locked up in proprietary products, by all means use the BSD license, but some people do care.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#7this is really REALLY thoughtful.
It should also convert any graphic it finds to a PNG, and afix a small CC-BY-SA watermark. Also, translate C++ back to C.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#8The GPL is a mistake. I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
> I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love. There's different interpretations of which is which.
Paraphrased hint for the downvoters, who obviously missed your point:
Some people would say GPL="rape" and BSD="making love", others would say GPL="making love" and BSD="rape"
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#9The GPL is a mistake. I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
If BSD-licensors wanted to give people freedom, they'd release code into the public domain. The BSD license's requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code. Some BSD license variants additionally restrict freedom by requiring certain notices to be displayed during program execution, or restricting what can be said about derivative copies.…
BSD may not be public domain but since StallmaGNU is such an advocate of freedom, I find the fact that the GPL prevents us from selling GPL projects to be decidedly anti-freedom.
I understand the point regarding possible subsequent proprietary projects, but such would seem to be an incentive to improve ones code, as the code is still yours to work with.
Re: Fixlicense - Convert software license headers to GPL
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
If BSD-licensors wanted to give people freedom, they'd release code into the public domain. The BSD license's requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code. Some BSD license variants additionally restrict freedom by requiring certain notices to be displayed during program execution, or restricting what can be said about derivative copies.…
BSD may not be public domain but since StallmaGNU is such an advocate of freedom, I find the fact that the GPL prevents us from selling GPL projects to be decidedly anti-freedom. I understand the point regarding possible subsequent proprietary projects, but such would seem to be an incentive to improve ones code, as the code is still yours to work with.
You can sell GPLed software all you like. You just have to provide source code to the people you sell binaries to, and allow them to redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL.