Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
> > with IP market economy.
> 
> So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.

Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting society. 

And I certainly don't see any problems with availability of sources to 
study code and conveniently exercise right to modify/adapt under 17 
USC 117. It doesn't need a license, it works with all rights reserved.

EPL/CPL is also fine (binaries need not be royalty free) as long as 
one needs binaries in order to execute. Another factor being that it
is clear legalese and not moronic Stallmanese (which is only good for 
your crackpot theories regarding "whole combined works" being 
derivative works).

regards,
alexander.