 |
 |
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:50 AM, graham <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 02/17/11 19:48, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> Personally, I much prefer "non-viral" type open source licenses like >> Apache or MIT for this reason. The GPL advocates argue that viral-type >> licenses like GPL are "more free" because nobody can take GPL code and >> turn it into a proprietary product. I see what they're trying to do. >> But from my perspective 'non-viral' open source licenses like Apache are >> 'more free' because it gives the user the freedom to combine Apache code >> with non-open-source code in a project. You can't do that with GPL, >> which seems less free to me. > > This is a classic position which is now 20 years or so old; I don't > think anyone on either side is likely to come up with a new argument - > you take your pick, and then try to find the best way to live with the > people you don't agree with, because neither side is going away in a hurry. Quite true. It's a boring, old argument. Let's try to avoid the brambles of whether copyleft licenses are more or less "free."