On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Roy Tennant wrote:
> What I'm finding too restrictive is the religious nature of the
> license. That is, it isn't enough that this specific application be
> open source, it must force every other application with which it comes
> into contact be open source as well. Frankly, I'd prefer that we create
> software that enables a lot of great things to happen, of all different
> stripes. But then, I've never been very religious so maybe it's just me.
Ignorance is bliss. I've never been 100% clear on that requirement. The GPL says "work
based on the Program" which I find vague. If you have a proprietary program but you want to
provide a search engine for your included HTML documentation does that mean everything in
that package has to be open source? Seem like a big gray area.
To compare, search engines similar to swish-e are htdig and mnoGoSearch and both are GPL.
I have two desires: If someone is using swish-e then I think it should be easy to find out
that fact. Doesn't mean there needs to be a logo showing Swish-e, but in the docs or README
or someplace not too hard to find.
Second, I do want to promote Open Source. But in a reasonable way.
I'm not religious either and I've seen RMS at a few conferences and talks and I'm happy for
what he has done, but he's a bit extreme for my tastes.
> > How much money is left in the Swish-e.com legal budget, Roy?
> We have just as much left in that budget as we began with, you crazy nut...<grin> Roy
Oh, then who paid for that trip to Hawaii? Anyway, that's good so we can continue to pursue
our license infringement suits.
Bill Moseley email@example.com
Received on Wed May 21 17:56:56 2003