Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a > alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the > GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per > se, and more concerned about the -community- being split by having two > interesting public code bases under different licenses. Particularly > if the interesting stuff starts happening under a GPL license, and > ends up obsoleting the original (BSD) codebase.
That is at least a comprehensible concern, unlike the ones which Sean has posted so far. I would be interested in hearing whether he agrees with it. I wouldn't worry about such a thing myself, mind you--forks against the wishes of the author are very rare in practice, and I can't think of a single succesful fork which changed the licensing conditions. But I can understand how somebody might have this as a theoretical concern. If this is really the problem, I think a more appropriate solution might be something like ``in any derivative work which includes source, the source must be under this license; however there are no restrictions on derivative works which do not include source.'' That would be GPL-incompatible, of course, but I think it would more clearly express the concern and be less divisive. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
