Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE

[Sean Farley]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:34, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> > --Brett Glass (Who hasn't happened to contribute to WINE yet, but may do so if
> > it remains open source)
>
> Could you have finished wiht a more dumb line? LGPL _is_ open source my
> friend, go read about it first.
>
> I don't know about other people, but I'm so tired of these arguments where
> LGPL is 'fascist', 'proprietary', 'not open source', etc. Once again, we
> don't discuss what is important, but we keep arguing about mostly
> irrelevant things, just like last time... :(

I think xGPL is open source.  I do not think it is Free.  Personally, I
dislike anything that is misleading.  Low fat candy is a good example.
0g of fat with 1000 calories will not stay "low fat".

I see freedom as allowing others to "speak" (code) as they see fit
without requirements to give me their code.  I do not see any GNU
license allowing this.

As Mr. Glass pointed out, Stallman said coders should code out of love
and not money.  If I want their code or money, I would put my code under
the xGPL.  If I do it out of love, I put it under a less-restricted
license (BSD or X11).

Dimitrie, remember that Mr. Glass is just as far on one side of the
issue as Mr. Stallman.  Maybe, Mr. Glass disgusts you.  That would mean
that the opposite, Mr. Stallman and his arguments, disgusts someone
else.

Just relax and take deep breaths.  :)  As should we all.

Sean
--------------
scf at farley.org