Re: More on GNU General Public License vs. Berkeley License

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Brett Glass wrote:
> I was greatly concerned when I saw a message from Jamie, posted on this
> list, indicating that he hadn't read the GPL and did not know the details
> of it. 

   Well, for the record, I was a bit confused over the term GPL.  I had
read a version of license dated 1991, and wasn't sure if that was still
the current version, and I wanted a better pointer on the web, in case I
write something about it with a hyperlink.

   I understand some, but not all the ramifications of the GPL.  I know
that copyleft uses strong copyright provisions, and that it is not
*free* like the Berkeley license.  However, the unfree aspects of the
GPL may be useful, in some contexts.  It seems evident to me that the
GPL will not foreclose someone offering a commercial product that runs
on a GPL OS, like Linux.  But it seems as though it will protect the
core OS from being cooped by any one firm.  

   I know Richard Stallman, and I am familiar with some of his views. 
But I don't even see that as very relevant. The license is a legal
document, and it means what it means, regardless of what motivated the
drafters.

   I am grateful to Brett for his comments on this and other issues, and
for his efforts to bring to my attention FreeBSD and the Berkeley
license, as yet anther alternative.  I'm am not persuaded that the GPL
license cannot coexit with commerical development, particularly for
applications, but maybe I am missing something.  Couldn't someone use
the Berekeley license for something which is written to run on a GNU
system like Linux?  Or even a standared commerical license?  

   Jamie


-- 
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176