"Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
>
> > What I would like to see is something *better* than the JCP. I believe in
> > open research. OSS fits a great many needs, but there are some key points in
> > Free Software (GPL/LGPL) that I don't necessarily agree with.
>
> I don't think that *anyone* should have problems with Free Software itself.
> Apache is Free Software. I think you probably mean copyleft. Copyleft is a
> controversial concept and I think it is still a number of years until it is
> really appreciated.
When I spoke of Free Software, I spoke with the definitions that Richard
Stallman uses--which excludes Apache. Apache is OSS compliant though.
As to Copyleft appreciation, I used to be a proponent of that approach. The
benefit of Copyleft is obvious to many people, however it's license is not
written in an easily understood manner. This leads to potential violations
whether intentionally or not. The simplicity of the Apache Software License
or the X Server License makes using them easier. I am more confident with
those licenses because I can usually incorporate any code I want and all will
be well.
My conclusion of the whole licensing issue is this: for the desktop or user level
software use the GPL, but for server side stuff where you need to provide dynamic
elements that are corporate specific use an ASL style license.
There are fewer issues to deal with when you use this type of approach. I am
pretty pragmatic, and I use what works for me. Most of the time OSS works for
me due to budget constraints (I would rather spend $2000 to fix a broken transmission
than buy a new IDE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
