. Unfortunately, too many people confuse Open Source
with the GPL and/or Linux and I think the OSD correctly skirts this
very issue and makes OSI more creditable in the process (thus averting
the phrase, GNU Source/Linux Source vs. Open Source/Business Source).
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss
. -sck
--
Sean Chittenden
OSSAL - Open Source Software Alliance License
Table of Contents:
Key
Template
Discussion
Footnotes
Download
Comments, Questions, and Discussion
KEY:
Below is an OSSAL template. To generate your own license, change the values of
AUTHOR, RELEASE, SOFTWARE
me know and I will either entertain such
discussions privately, or if there is enough interest, setup a
dedicated list for this topic... but please, it's not appropriate
here. The OSI is not a political organization to advocate use of the
GPL. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive
OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most
likely open and available to the public.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
happened, however. Having it explicitly
stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the 1st time this has
happened.
http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
software
developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which
goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Source is bigger than copyleft
software. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
on the
same medium must be open-source software.
OSSAL restricts the use, yes. OSSAL does not, however, restrict
distribution. I crafted these words to be very careful to comply with
the OSD while preserving the intention of the license. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive
or the MIT or the AFL or whatever.
Which means duplicated work/effort, which is what the OSSAL aims to
prevent. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
, however it does not for the reasons stated above.
[snip]
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
the BSDL when
appropriate. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
it as a result of some idealogical
whim. I personally have invested roughly 1.5K hours in 2003 on this
project, a little reciprocity/quid pro quo would be nice and that's
what the OSSAL delivers me. As the license discussion states, if you
scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
means, let them improve a bit of code that they're going to have to
maintain a fork of.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
.
*) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good.
*) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses.
Take your pick of any one of the above. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
it has
received, and it has even been improved as a result. Thank you to
those who have challenged it, I do appreciate it.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
discusses both.
Well, from what I can tell, any conclusion that isn't the GPL seems to
indicate a flaw in whoever's argumentation. :) -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
keep your promise on the distinction, don't post any
more.
Is it really that big of a deal if I call a widget manufacturer a
business? Widget manufacturers are by and large businesses, though as
stated above, I know the opposite isn't exclusively true. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss
in their widgets. It's like the
ultimate tease, which isn't cool in my book of ethics.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
it under the
GPL because the AFL's patent poison-pill is GPL-incompatible.
AFL patent poison-pill? -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license may be more appropriate.
For example Netscape uses (used?) this. All modified releases are to
be publicly available (much like the GPL), but furthermore everyone
who is not Sean Chittenden has to license his modifications to Sean
under arbitrary terms. This allows Sean to do whatever he
, then
maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses
best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those
changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes
available to other widget makers.
[snip]
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
and future versions don't have those
changes, both companies have to burden the costs independently of
maintaining those changes. Widget makers want to reduce costs and
engineers are lazy and will punt the code as fast as they can.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http
by alienating widget makers from depending on what
should be freely available software that can be downloaded on the
local mirror/CVSup server.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
intentions and isn't nearly as vitriolic or
elegant as the original. I'm still crafting and will come up with
another draft in a bit. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
resources to open source
projects/modules.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
the OSSAL only prohibits the
latter and not the former.
Correct, that's for market forces to correct, not some chunk of
legalese. See previous posts about why the GPL is not looked kindly
upon by me or the OSSAL.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin
this is a problem I'd solve with license restrictions. *still
thinking about this* -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
and letting _open_ markets correct
themselves. The Open Source world is as good of an open market as
I've ever seen.
[snip]
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
that I forget who has
said what.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
on GPL bits, which I'm not wild about.
[snip]
Enough meta-rambling; back to the debate...
Whoa! Wait a sec, you mean code talks and there's more to software
than its license? :) -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
33 matches
Mail list logo
