3 ms·
So proprietary is bad, unless someone pays a GPL IP owner for it? Seriously? Come on rms, it wouldn't kill you to admit that sometimes non-GPL licenses are ok
by jbellis 17y ago
So proprietary is bad, unless someone pays a GPL IP owner for it? Seriously?
Come on rms, it wouldn't kill you to admit that sometimes non-GPL licenses are ok.
- doki_pen 17y agoI think it is very clear that he is saying, some software wouldn't be free at all if not for dual licensing. So if dual licensing allows more software to be free, then it is good.
- cschwarm 17y agoQuite the contrary [1]: The assumption that proprietary software is "immoral", "unethical" and "evil" is very much the heart and soul of the Free Software Movement. To say it's not, sometimes, would contradict this assumption and make it invalid. So, it would indeed kill him. [1] Strickly speaking, he's OK with non-GPL software as long as it's "free" according to his definition of "free".
- brlewis 17y agoThe central point of the article is that non-GPL licenses are not wrong, and a GPL exception is no worse than a non-GPL license. I think this point is very clearly spelled out.