20 Dec
2005
20 Dec
'05
6:57 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:25:00PM +0000, Jules Richardson wrote:
Christer O. Andersson wrote:
I was trying to make a point - the GPL is not a good license if
you want to rip off somebodys code. It protects against that.
Dave shouldn't pick a license he doesn't like, of course. There
are a lot of licenses available.
I think ImageDisk would be more spread and used if the source was
public, and I would believe that is a kind of reward to the author.
I cannot really see any drawback in publishing the source. If you
don't want to read it, you don't have to. Publishing the code helps
the program to survive, long after the original author gives up on
it. That way, you can trust that it will still be available when
you need it next time.
--
Christer O. Andersson
Odensbacken
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:42:13AM +0000, Jules
Richardson wrote:
You snipped the rest of my message where I pointed out that Dave has said
that he doesn't consider the code ready for a full public release yet. The
GPL, as I understand it, would give anyone the right to modify *and
distribute* (including in modified form) the source, and it's not
considered by the author to yet be at a sufficient release point to do that
and open it up completely (whether under the GPL or some other scheme).
So whether the GPL would or would not eventually fit the needs is
irrelevant at the present time because it would impose rules that are
unsuitable for the code in its present state. care about having source. The only people it would
seem to affect are
those who wanted to take Dave's code, modify it, and release it as though
it were all their own work - and I doubt anyone on this list would be
happy with someone who did that.
You don't get it - that's exactly what GPL protects against.