🚀 go-pugleaf

I am somewhat of two minds about the GPL.  Basically, although I
reject the premise ("all software should be *Free"), I like the
instrument; that is, while I don't necessarily believe in Stallmanism,
I am quite happy to release my own code under such terms, because (in
general) it achieves what I want my "free" licensing terms to do.
I could just as easily use the New Berkeley terms (which are also used
by CMU-ITC and MIT), but I prefer somewhat stronger language.  I will
probably use the LPL rather than the GPL when it comes out, as that is
somewhat closer to the level that I want.

There are also some terms that I would like to see in whatever license
regarding selling the software.  In particular, I would like to see
language about sellers "making a good-faith effort to ensure that the
version they are distributing is the latest possible" or some such--if
I find a bug in my code, and fix it, I don't want people calling me
months down the road who just got the older version and were hit by
the bug.

-GAWollman

Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu

Disclaimer:  I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never
mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.