On Wednesday 26 May 2010 1:28:54 Jack Johnson wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey <[email protected]> wrote: > > No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck, > > one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're > > practically bedfellows. > > I'm just noting that usually licensing is looked at as a continuum of > commercial vs free, and rarely as restrictive vs non-restrictive (or > heck, complex vs simple), and occasionally it's useful to consider the > other dimensions and how the particular perspective of each unique > beast affects the conversation and analysis. > > So, for me, it's intriguing that in both the scenario where you want > to retain complete IP control over your code and the scenario where > you hope to ensure complete IP public longevity, the best defense > seems to be restrictive licensing. But, from the perspective where > you have public code and want to garner mindshare, there are a > multitude of facets that affect that choice, and having a multiplicity > of licensing options may improve the fecundity/fidelity/longevity of > said code in more complex ways than can be readily surmised from the > previous perspective. >
Ok, now we're speaking the same language. (c8= Your original comment was framed far too narrowly to take seriously; I just couldn't resist offering my own little counter-hyperbole! (all in good humor) > -Jack (continuing to contribute nothing to the good of the order) +1 <grin> Cheers
