Sat, August 18, 2012 - 3:20 PM
I'm always amused by developers who release code using GPL v3. As is the case here, the developer espouses that software should be "free, as in speech", but then uses a license that is so restrictive that the code can only be integrated into other open source projects. GPL v3 was precisely the reason Apple had to remove samba functionality from Mac OS X and had to develop their own solution.
If the software is supposed to be "free", shouldn't that mean it's free to all to use as they see fit, so long as attribution is provided?