From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Junio's wishes [Was: Re: Approxidate licensing] Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200610102054.k9AKsQ2a004095@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Daniel Barkalow , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 11 00:12:51 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXPpo-0006AG-4S for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:12:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030572AbWJJWMV (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030573AbWJJWMU (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:39593 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030572AbWJJWMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:19 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k9AMC6aX023816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:12:06 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k9AMC4Br027179; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:12:05 -0700 To: "Horst H. von Brand" In-Reply-To: <200610102054.k9AKsQ2a004095@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.468 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.95__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.155 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > There is a small practical problem with that: How would you find out I'm > using a modified version of your code internally? Also, the "distribution" > part of GPLv2 is a useful filter: Only such modifications that are > worthwhile to distribute get back, not each and every corner I paint myself > into while playing around. Hey, I obviously agree that the GPLv2 is a good license, but at the same time, I think too many people tend to think _just_ about legal issues. Sometimes the wishes of an author should matter, regardless of whether there is any law that forces you to do so. So I personally think a license that says: "if you improve this, give out the improvements regardless of whether you distribute things further or not" is a nice sentiment, and should be honored, regardless of whether you can legally enforce any such private tinkering or not. Linus