Re: silc license change before v1.0 ?

[Scott M L. <da...@bo...>]

--On Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:18 AM +0200 Anders Nor Berle 
<de...@de...> wrote:

> But which would you consider more (likely to be) secure, an
> implementation based on the reference implementation, or something
> written from scratch, with development time in mind?

> True. But we can add a clause to the license saying closed source
> implementations may not directly advertise using the silc toolkit if
> modified.

You can also use the Artistic License.  Which is much more *fun* if you ask 
me.

> The not holding up in court argument was for certain parts of LGPL
> (and not GPL as you later in this post state), I didn't even try to make
> it sound like anything else.

> Yes I did. GPL will limit adaption. Why would pekka and for that matter,
> the rest of the group bother to continue development if no one wants
> to use it? Remember, not everyone wants to develope their client under
> the terms of the GPL.

People that arnt willing to help develop on a project because of it's 
license, pardon my french need to get their head checked for holes.

I can think of better reasons to refuse helping a project, idiot head of 
project, dumb programmers, someone who removes your patch's because of the 
way you code.



> Not that "kind". :-)

There is a different license for every kind of mood, heck if pekka was so 
inclined he could start his own license if he so desired to.  Seen it 
before.

> Distribution was assumed, but sorry, I'll explicitly refer to that next
> time. :)

> Actually, we might both be right here, but I don't count the x11 split as
> the official wine project. All the contributors are still contributing to
> one of the wines, just not the official wine.

> But GCC isn't a reference implementation.

> Yes I am.. :-(
>
> But assume I said propetiary client for a second, wouldn't that make my
> argument more valid?


> Doesn't apply to other licenses, at least not for the same reason. LGPL
> assumes among other things that you can hold a copyright on devices. BSD
> and MIT certainly doesn't.

> But as you said, noninteresting discussion. See above for closing
> statements. :-)

Now i'm about to add a filter to sieve to further block this drivel.

Please, just voice  your opinion to pekka about what you want, and leave it 
be.  Stop beating the horse, it's dead, it's decomposed and it's rotting 
and making my mailbox stink.

Damm