On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Friday 02 July 2010 22:55:27 narendra sisodiya wrote:
I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then INAL.
As per my knowledge, I may be wrong,
you are wrong
If something is "not copyrighted" then it becomes public domain.
the moment you publish anything, you automatically get copyright of it whether you like it or not, or mention it or not
License comes into action when somebody has full rights (ie copyrights) and he
want
to give some limited freedom to enjoy some software under some terms and conditions. (ie license). If somebody do not include any license then it means he is not permitting anything. If somebody is not including
copyright
then it means it means that software is public domain.
license comes when he either gives limited freedom (as in GPL) or full freedom (as in BSD).
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner. The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community". Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is good.