On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Steve Underwood <
steveu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> 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.
>
The problem is that almost any licence term which tries to limit the
obnoxious behaviour of other people has too many unpleasant side
effects. GPL 2.0 is the best compromise I've found, so that is what I
used for everything unless recently. To make my stuff licence compatible
with FreeSwitch I recently relicenced most of my work as LGPL 2.1. This
is having undesirable consequences, though. Its really a tough issue,
and GPL 2.0 showed immense foresight in just accepting the non-existence
of perfect solutions. GPL 3 seems to have forgotten the lesson somewhat.
Most of the time I just want to give up producing anything at all.
Steve