Re: Misunderstanding of PD and copyrights

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 20:11:04 CDT

At 5:13 PM -0700 5/13/04, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>The main difference here is whether or not derivative works should be
>under the same license as the original (this is GPL). If all we care
>about is people being able to test software and we don't really care
>about people taking released software and building closed software,
>BSD is a good choice. However, I believe, if we want to attract many
>coders and ensure that patches and modifications *must* be distributed
>under the same terms as the original, GPL is the way to go.

That's an excellent question. Does it make sense for voting software
for there to be many coders? And do we want to preclude
incorporation of UC written software in commercial products? Are
there alternative restrictions to GPL? Suppose we said that
derivative works had to be published, but could be proprietary, would
that serve our purposes? (I realize that *our* is an open question,
since some of us are GPL supporters, others of us may want the
software totally controlled by the OVC, and others merely want to get
our system and concepts used one way or another.)

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT