Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 11, 9:00 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 15:00, Lie Ryan <lie.1... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Come on, 99%  of the projects released under GPL did so because they
> > don't want to learn much about the law; they just need to release it
> > under a certain license so their users have some legal certainty.
>
> Yes, this is frequently the case. And the GPL does offer some
> certainty that various permissive licences do not.

Huh? Permissive licenses offer much better certainty for someone
attempting a creative mash-up.  Different versions of the Apache
license don't conflict with each other.  If I use an MIT-licensed
component, it doesn't attempt to make me offer my whole work under
MIT.

[..]
>
> Well, that's always an option as well, but at the same time, there are
> people willing to pursue licence violations, and these people have
> done so successfully. There's no need to make an impassioned argument
> for apathy, though. Some people do wish to dictate what others can do
> with their work.

Oh, I get it.  You were discussing the certainty that an author can
control what downstream users do with the software to some extent.
Yes, I fully agree.  The GPL is for angry idealists who have an easily
outraged sense of justice, who don't have enough real problems to work
on.

BTW, I'm here to make an impassioned argument for apathy.  For
example, I think the world needs fewer suicide bombers, and the more
apathy we can get.

Regards,
Pat