<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Steve Underwood <<a href="mailto:steveu@coppice.org">steveu@coppice.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Vinícius Fontes wrote:<br>
> When people release software under the GPL license, like Steve Underwood did with libunicall, spandsp and so on, they were supposed to know that other people has the right to use their code.<br>
><br>
</div>The problem is that almost any licence term which tries to limit the<br>
obnoxious behaviour of other people has too many unpleasant side<br>
effects. GPL 2.0 is the best compromise I've found, so that is what I<br>
used for everything unless recently. To make my stuff licence compatible<br>
with FreeSwitch I recently relicenced most of my work as LGPL 2.1. This<br>
is having undesirable consequences, though. Its really a tough issue,<br>
and GPL 2.0 showed immense foresight in just accepting the non-existence<br>
of perfect solutions. GPL 3 seems to have forgotten the lesson somewhat.<br>
<br>
Most of the time I just want to give up producing anything at all.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Steve<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>So are you angry that he may gain monetarily from your your work, or is it hurt pride that he is basically taking credit for it? <br><br>The answer to that should guide you in how you release your work in the future.<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totaro<br></div></div><br>