Subject: Re: Artistic License Essay
From: Glen Starchman <glen@enabledventures.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:37:43 -0700

On Wednesday 01 August 2001 07:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But the GPL *is* viral -- it contaminates other software that comes
> in sufficiently close contact with your software.
>

Not only viral, in my opinion (and countless others), but a one-way 
license. What I mean by that is: I can release software under a 
"proprietary" license, change my mind later on and open source it, or 
even GPL it. If I GPL my software, am I not stuck with it? Am I not for 
all eternity forced to allow others to modify and redistribute *my* 
work?

> I know the FSF doesn't like these words, so you may want to propose
> other words, but the GPL is designed to have this property which goes
> well beyond persistance.

There is a lot of talk about freedom coming from the FSF and, while I 
don't wish to knock what it has done, in my estimation the GPL can be 
just as (if not more) freedom resticting than a proprietary license.