Personally, I find this (and the GPL in general) to fly directly in the face of how I feel about free software. If I make a piece of software that I have written free from cost and open sourced, I honestly don't care whether its used in the core of a Microsoft operating system or printed out and used as toilet paper. Why is it that so many people seem to care more about the GPL license than the software under it? I feel that the the true objective of all software to be as useful as possible; open-sourcedness tends to maximize the potential of the software because an entire community supports and develops it. I feel that a restrictive license such as the GPL neuters this potential by limiting the use of the software.
One of the most beautiful things about Perl is its Artistic licsene that is about as open as you can get. Its a license that does not limit the usefulness of the language by limiting what it can be used for. If Perl were to fall under a liscene like the one you describe, I would abandon it in disgust.
In reply to Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL
by jryan
in thread OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL
by mdupont
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |