FC4 or FC5

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 00:08 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > 
> > The more interesting issue is what happens when the 2 idealistic
> > pursuits you've mentioned clash?  That is, do you deprive the
> > people you would like to help with this software by making a system
> > that cannot use technologies under different licensing (mp3/mpeg
> > and many others) because of the GPL restrictions or will you
> > condescend to something like perl's dual license to allow it to
> > be improved in any way someone would like?  
> ----
> Regardless of any point you make, you have no point to make.
> 
> Linux is GPL and will always be thus.

Be sure you always state that as "a modified version of the GPL"
when it applies to Linux.

>  This is a Linux list.

No, this is a list for a distribution that includes works under
many licenses and it is misleading to imply that one of them
is more responsible for what is included than any other - although
it would be correct to point one out as the reason certain things
can't be included.

>  The subject
> license is that which is chosen by whomever owns the code...period.
> 
> If you write code, you can release it under whatever license you
choose.

I have no problem with anyone choosing a license with an understanding
of its terms, but it's rather clear that many people don't understand
the side effects of the GPL.  In fact when the FSF lawyer states:

  "We will not advise you that it would be safe to do so, but
   we also will not advise you that it would be absolutely forbidden."

(http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/data/doc/gstreamer/head/faq/html/chapter-legal.html#legal-distribute-three)
I think it is entirely possible that no one understands them.

> Other than that - your postings amount to little more than pissing in
> the wind.

Yes, the damage is already done on existing GPL'd works that aren't
dual licensed, but people are starting new projects all the time.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com