[ANNOUNCE] Umbra role-playing game 0.2 pre-alpha

[Benjamin Schollnick]

In article <3AE21FB8.481CC5D1 at student.gu.edu.au>,
 s713221 at student.gu.edu.au wrote:

> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:

> > Kalle Svensson <kalle at gnupung.net> spake:
> > >Sez Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes [regarding the GPL]:
> > >I think you've got the "virus" thing all wrong.  It doesn't force you to 
> > >the GPL for your programs unless they are derivative works of a program
> > >licensed under the GPL.
> > 
> >   Or unless someone else makes changes to your code to integrate even a
> > teensy little bit of GPL-infected code, and then your code is diseased,
> > too.
> 
> Aren't you one of the guys who doesn't want to release your code because
> you're afraid people will run away with it? The way I see it, the GPL
> ensures that if you decide to release code as open source, it stays
> open. Just because it belongs to the open community, doesn't give others
> the right to 'pirate' it for commercial closed source applications.

He has the right to release his code in any manner, shape or form that 
he wants to.

If you don't like that, design a replacement for his package.... It's as 
simple as that...

GPL does *NOT* ensure that another author will not take your code, and 
release it as non-open source code.  (i.e. in EXE form only, or 
equivalent).

In fact, if that does occur, it maybe difficult to prove that someone 
has stolen your code.

Even so, what will you do...?  Sue?  Can you _AFFORD_ to sue?

The GPL license is _NOT_ the end all of licensing terms.  It's 
relatively fair, I personally feel that it's tooo restrictive....  And 
prefer a derivive of the Mozilla licensing agreement....  (If I'm 
remembering it correctly....)

(Or the Apple licensing agreement....)

         - Benjamin