[computer-go] Licenses are uselless

[David G Doshay]

Perhaps I should have said "practical *economic* consequence." Chrilly's
point seems to be that there really are just two states that are of any
true economic consequence: Open (code viewable) and Closed (pre-
compiled code). I agree.

Please note that I do put a statement at the top of each file in  
SlugGo's
code that states that the Foundation holds all rights to the code,  
but that
it grants the right to non-commercial and research related use of the
code. While this is what I want, I just have no illusions about the  
practical
difficulty of actually preventing other uses after the code went  
public ...
just like there exists copyright law, but lots of books are run through
xerox machines.

Cheers,
David



On 8, Aug 2006, at 4:47 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

> David,
>
> You are viewing a license negatively.  A license can also give people
> rights instead of taking them away.    It's better to give people the
> dignity to have the code in good conscience instead of worrying  
> about if
> they are doing the right thing.    I know this won't matter to most
> people, but there are a few honest people left who will want that.
>
> - Don
>
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 21:48 -0700, David G Doshay wrote:
>> While I won't dispute some of the previous reasoning on this subject,
>> Chrilly's comments below are the closest to the reality of the
>> license issue. The main point really is that if you do not have the
>> time and money to enforce a license world wide, the specific language
>> differences between the various open source licenses is not of any
>> practical consequence.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David