Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified > works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole > host of business models the copyright holder simply can't make viable, > especially on a startup budget. That's not a defect, or even necessarily > a shame - the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally > weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. This makes it hard to > reconcile, though, with the traditional model for small software > developers - that you get paid proportionate to the amount of value your > product is providing to people, roughly expressed as the number of people > using your product. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported > (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes > people to see OSI licenses as "cheerleading for the GPL".
I just want to perform a little semantic janitorial duty, here: Surely the allegation discussed at the end of your paragraph is objectively a factual error. In anyone else's hands, I'd have suspected it was intended as flamebait. -- Cheers, Rick Moen ROMANI, ITE DOMVM! [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
