> > Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use > > (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software. > > It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and > ``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use > proprietary software.'' As I and others have pointed out, there are > many businesses which sell commercial software based on the GPL. I > have and do work for such businesses, so for me it is not an > abstract issue. Yes, as you said the last time I mentioned this, > there are of course very many businesses which do not use the GPL. > But that does not excuse your continuing misuse of language.
hrm... good point. I'll use the phrase "widget makers," where a widget is a product that is derived from open source software and released as a proprietary piece of goo. I think that'll keep everyone happy and working on the same page, as you're right... this has caused a great deal of confusion. > > > You say that the OSSAL explicitly permits proprietary forks, but > > > the BSD license does that as well. The OSSAL prohibits > > > something very specific: if somebody takes code under license X, > > > and takes GPL code, and links them together, and distributes the > > > result, that is permitted if X is the BSD license, but > > > prohibited if X is the OSSAL license. > > > > Correct. If someone needs some code that is only available under > > the GPL, then there exists the need for that code to be rewritten > > under a BSD/MIT license. > > In other words, for your purposes, releasing the code under the GPL > is no different from releasing the code without sources. This > argument against the GPL is just as strong as an argument against > proprietary release. Actually, proprietary release is slightly > worse, since at least with a GPL release you can study the > algorithms. Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* [snip] > > From a business's point of view, the BSD/MIT license is deficient > > in its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its > > efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the > > ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any > > modifications made by the public. The BSD/MIT licenses do not > > protect a business' ability to reap any kind of contributions in > > the form of usable intellectual property. Non-feasance to address > > these issues by the authors of the BSD or MIT licenses doesn't > > preclude me from writing a BSD or MIT-like license that satisfies > > a business's needs. Those opposing the OSSAL are arguing that a > > BSD or MIT license covers a business's basis, however it does not > > for the reasons stated above. > > The real quid pro quo license is, of course, the GPL. The arguments > you bring out here are the same arguments that businesses use when > they decide to release software under the GPL. That's fine, but if a widget maker releases a piece of software under the GPL, other widget makers won't care and won't look at the resulting open sourced code. Under the OSSAL/BSD/MIT license, they would. In releasing code under the OSSAL/BSD/MIT license, I at least have a snowball's chance in a hot place of having a professional engineer who makes widgets look at the code and _possibly_ suggest improvements in the form of patches, bug reports, etc. [snip] > If you just want to have a ``GPL sucks'' license, then say so. I'm > sure you can find plenty of people to support it. I'm trying to suggest that the GPL and BSD/MIT licenses don't fit my needs as a business and I think the OSSAL is an adequate alternative that suits my needs and the needs of others. I know the "risks" or possible scenarios for the OSSAL/BSD/MIT licensed code and think that many here are trying to protect me from the very thing that I'm trying to do. I posted the OSSAL to this list/OSI for scrutiny, which it has received, and it has even been improved as a result. Thank you to those who have challenged it, I do appreciate it. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
