So to be clear by your license...

If I copy the Ubuntu CD sitting on my desk and file both copies in the
trash bin at my feet ("make software from software") then all the
proprietary software I have written for the past 15 years ("your
software and source code") must be "distributed freely just like Ubuntu
(this software) is"?

No thanks I like the GPL better.  ; )

While I am being onery with the above, you must understand that the
verbiage necessary for a legal document that translates for copyright
issues across the globe can not be as simple as three or four sentence
paragraph.  I find the GPL to be rather eloquent and terse compared to
many licenses.

-Derek

Jason Spatafore wrote:

>On Sunday 12 June 2005 08:06, Alan Dayley wrote:
>  
>
>>What are you laughing at?  I find the GPL one of the easiest to
>>understand licenses in the software industry.  Perhaps you'd like to
>>elaborate on your opinion?
>>    
>>
>
>The fluff. There's too much fluff. Let's simplify it:
>
>"If you make software from this software, your software and source code must 
>be distributed freely just like this software is. No exceptions and no 
>restrictions."
>
>Do you see how easy that is?
>
>I would get into a long and drawn out discussion but I am the last person on 
>earth to engage in a discussion regarding IP theft/protection. My opinion is 
>simple: if you don't warranty and support the software you create, including 
>the output it produces, you should have no right to IP protections nor should 
>you be allowed to charge for use of your product. Period. No exceptions.
>
>
>  
>