-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Kevin!
>
> "Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
>
> > If you subscribe to the BSD philosophy that in order to have a strong software
> > development model you need to be loose with your licensing so more people can
> > easily embrace your code. Dual licensing allows the GPL camp to accept our code
> > into their fold and treat it like a first class citizen. No more wars. They
> > get to keep their GPL philosophy, we get to keep our BSD philosophy. Just flip
> > the coin and it is a win-win situation :).
>
> I like the idea, and I deeply respect your point of view (philosophy). I'm talking
>about
> practical aspects.
>
> Suppose Apache Software Foundation has a codebase, Foo 1.0. It's dual-licensed: BSD
>or
> GPL, whatever you choose. Now the FSF likes it, so they choose GPL and develop Foo
>1.1
> under GPL. (They would never work with dual-licensed code.) No mention at all in the
> credits.
First off, forking is an essential right in any Open Source project. For
natural selection to really take hold we need to allow individuals to try out
new ideas and see if they work. That said it is VERY hard to fork an Open
Source project. Just imagine trying to fork Apache httpd into another
project... would never happen unless you had a REALLY good reason to do it.
The FSF might decide to fork but they would have to put a LOT of work into the
code base to make it that much better and there would have to be REALLY good
technical reasons.
BTW part of the fork effort here would be justifying the GPL only switch. A lot
of developers that are BSD fans would stick to the dual licensed code.
<snip>
> On the other hand, suppose some evil company takes it and releases an independent and
> improved Foo 1.2 under BSD license. Now, they don't have to release the source code
>--
yup. you have to consider this when you release your code. BTW this can happen
under ALL BSD licensed projects and if this is an issue you should use the GPL.
<snip>
> We're not even to the point of enforcing the license. Imagine what a big company can
>do
> in a trial if they're sued, with this kind of license.
<snip>
<IANAL>
- - Scenario 1:
- Lawyer: Which license did you use?
- Company: GPL
- Lawyer: Did you release your source?
- Company: No
- Lawyer: No further questions your honor.
- - Scenario 2:
- Lawyer: Which license did you use?
- Company: BSD Style
- Lawyer: Did you give the original developers credit?
- Company: No
- Lawyer: No further questions your honor.
</IANAL>
The enforment is easy. It is just like enforcing any existing license.
Kevin
- --
Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
Without enlightenment, there is only ignorance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt
iD8DBQE6mpcrAwM6xb2dfE0RAj8dAJ0dBukDTupDdCTdCwWyY5YWDjFC2ACfV//T
18E/ZXb0NpRARg9VJe4FEBY=
=O8JH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marxist Legion of Doom ammunition Treasury kibo Cocaine North Korea Serbian spy
Panama NORAD BATF quiche Ortega supercomputer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
