[OT] open-source license issues

[Nick Sabalausky]

"spir" <denis.spir at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.3438.1302612984.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On 04/12/2011 12:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> (depending, of course, on the incomprehensible details of the
>> GPL)
>
> GPL is just one sample.
> And I don't get your insistance on "incomprehensible details": as if you 
> did not know *all* devices and all commercial software you have ever 
> bought come with a contract and/or license full of incomprehensible 
> details; not only that, but they are designed by professionnal legists to 
> deceive you.
> Free software license hairy legalist details are instead made, precisely, 
> to avoid such deceiptions (by first users of the software, against end 
> users).
>

Clickwrap agreements are known to difficult to enforce even when the company 
tries to enforce it. Plus it's pretty easy to just violate those licenses 
without anyone ever even knowing. And as far as putting out derivative 
works, the need to reverse-engineer (since they don't come with source) 
makes the whole idea of doing a derivative work fairly unrealistic anyway, 
so it doesn't really even enter into the picture.

Of course, if I'm merely going to *use* some program as an end-user, then I 
have no problem with GPL. And overall, yes, I do prefer GPL to closed-source 
proprietary. But if I'm interested in creating a derivative work, or using 
some library in software I plan to release, or just simply choosing a 
license for my own software, then I'm not happy with GPL *or* typical 
clickwrap licenses.