[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this

>From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
>On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly  wrote:
> > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
> >
> > A Washington State senator is trying to make it government
> > policy to not support research that produces GPLed
> > software because the GPL is a license that "would prevent
> > or discourage commercial adoption" of technologies.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
>Everyone knows my biases, but I think there's a pretty reasonable point
>here.  A "university" license would, in my opinion, be the most
>appropriate license for government-funded software to be released under.
>Simply by virtue of being compatible with all other existing licenses,
>Open Source or not, it makes the software more widely usable, and thus
>more valuable to society as a whole.  Since a properly-formed university
>license is compatible with the GPL, it would also not prevent government
>funds from going to funds that are based on GPL software, for example the
>Linux kernel.  If I were a senator I'd be tempted to sign onto such
>legislation.  I'd look very closely, though, for any easter eggs left by
>software vendors from Washington State.
>         Brian    (01)

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.    (02)

http://www.nexist.org/wiki/User0Blog    (03)