Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:

> At 12:24 AM 1/2/99 -0500, stan johnson wrote:
>
> >"Another"? This is the same argument that you've raised, here and in
> >the InfoWorld Electric fora, too many times to count. The restrictions
> >are only 'onerous' from the point of view of those wishing to use the
> >code freely released by others, for their own proprietary purposes.
>
> Precisely. In the scientific world, this is standard practice. It's
> also hailed as one of the great benefits of open source. But the GPL
> denies it.
>
> >I urge you to release all of your doubtless innovative and creative
> >programs under that license,
>
> Under which license? I already do release some code under the Berkeley
> license and encourage others to build on it. I also build on
> such code to create both open source and commercial products.
>
> What I will not do is what the GPL does: kill developers' markets by
> releasing open source code, and then not give back to those developers
> by granting them the right to build on it and make money. This is
> unethical and unfair, and I won't be a party to it.
>
> --Brett Glass

You have made comments in other posts about Microsoft being able to
clean-room GPL'd code.  Under the BSD license, however, they wouldn't even
have to clean-room it, right?  So in this regard, why is BSD license
better?