On 18-Feb-07, at 10:18 PM, nipra wrote:
copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.
Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any personal interpretation of Open Source software.
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further diluted to cover the case of scilab. I feel this is far less hypocritical than the 'dual-license' model which for some strange reason is tolerated by the promoters of GPL. Classic case is mysql.
As for copyleft, I have always understood that the key element of the concept of copyleft is the 'contribute back' condition, whereby the ownership of the copyright gets spread. For example, in the case of the linux kernel, the copyright ownership is so widely spread that it has been practically subverted - which is the ultimate goal of copyleft. BSD style licenses do not have this condition - the whole copyright always vests with the original owner.