Ramanraj K said on Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:20:14PM +0530,:
I hate to butt into such a brilliant analysis; but this one needs
One of the chief features of free software, is the
"right to fork",
and the copyleft clause ensures that the "right to fork" is
meaningful in the present context.
Right to fork is a very important feature of free software, and `right
to fork' is meaningful; and copyleft ensures it remains meaningful.
The GNU GPL and other strong copyleft licenses ensure that forks
remain `free'. But the BSD license does not. People vouching for the
BSD license do not want to ensure that forks remain free. For this
part of the free software community, `freedom' means freedom to make
non free forks of the software, and keep the users' dependent on the
person who made the non-free forks. This approach is solely from
True GNUheads know that programmers too are users of software; and
even a small compromise on principles will result in the proverbial
`Arab and the camel' scenario. They know that merely `opening the
source' will not protect the users' freedom. While proponents of the
open source and/or BSD-ish philosophies have so many things to say
about FSF, the FSF has (AFAIK - I am not officially a part of the FSF,
except as a regular on the lists) nothing against these people.
We include people of all hues and colours, encourage them to realise
the dangers they are facing, try to go along with them, correct,
educate and guide them when necessary. Exclusion is not on the agenda
of the true GNUhead.
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,