> >It really seems you completely miss the point of the OSI! > > I don't think I'm missing the point- > ... > some clauses most commercial entities would like to see in a > license that are specifically excluded by the OSD. So as a > means of finding some common ground
Again, you *are* missing the point. The OSI and OSD were developed specifically to be the common ground of which you speak. In the beginning, there was the FSF, and commercial people said, "RMS is ornery and not particularly commercial world friendly". So someone, like you, said, why don't we come up with compromises that go as far as one can reasonably go, without losing the key developers and users rights that matter. Lets find some common ground. And let's give it a name and an organization to back this initiative up. Thus the OSI and OSD were born. I recommend you go read the stuff on the web site pages. > ps: we've looked at MPL and all of the other recommended licenses. I'm > sure we'll look again. But I'm also sure they each have problems for > most commercial organizations. Perhaps. But the MPL was specifically designed to be the very compromise of which you speak. It consumed tons of legal and community time. There was serious pressure from some large corporations to protect their IP rights and ability to sell software that mixed proprietary and free code. Yes, each license has its problems. By far the biggest problem for any new license is that it is a new license. You are better off picking one of the existing licenses and then going through that license finding problems, then searching the archives for discussion of those issues, and only then, when you still don't know about something, posting a question here, about one issue at a time. -- ralph -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
