> > > So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the > > > modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it > > > matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive > > > license? > > > > Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming > > language and someone writes a module for that language, the least > > that the module author can do is release the module under business > > friendly terms. > > The author can release a binary-only module under OSSAL terms. How > is that friendly to other software developers or users?
It's not, but they have to incur the costs of maintaining it, so that's their perogotive. > > If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the > > GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that > > effort. > > If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under > the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module, you have > to duplicate that effort. Correct. > If people don't like the business consequences of releasing under > GPL, why would they release source at all? I don't know how else to say this: *) "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." *) Reciprocity amongst businesses. *) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good. *) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses. Take your pick of any one of the above. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
