Re: FLTK? (OT: licenses)

[Enrico Tassi <gareuselesinge@...>]

On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:27:55AM -0700, Vijay Aswadhati wrote:
> software is not really 'free' as in 'freedom'.

Brr...
If you speak of freedom, in the sense of Free Software, and you think
GPL software is not Free.. may be you missed something.

I think the MIT license is good for LUA, but is free as free beer.
Everybody can drink it for free, giving nothing back to the LUA
community.

The big point behind 'free' as in 'freedom' is *ethical*, not technical.
A MIT software can be taken, made better, an never be back to community
that created it. This is good for making $$ but not for the community
who developed the software at the begin. 

GPL was invented as a trick to make communities grow. And the growth of
these communities was the target of RMS when he wrote that license.

GPL software may seem more restrictive as MIT, and in fact it is, 
but a GPL software will never steel you the kind of freedom you are
talking about saying 'free' as in 'freedom' (nor the MIT software).
I think the GPL doesn't give the freedom as in 'free beer', while MIT
does.

So maybe you are talking of free beer saying 'free' as in 'freedom'.

just my 2 cents about software freedom.
-- 
Enrico Tassi