[snip] > > 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. > > In fact they do. People who sell proprietary software are among the > heaviest contributors to the open-source community.
While there is a basis for this claim, it isn't particularly helpful to a discussion one way or another. > > 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. > > Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and I > recommend that the OSI approve it. Are you apart of the approval process? *doesn't remember reading that part* > I don't believe your advocacy is founded on sound argumentation, > which is an entirely independent point. This list discusses both. Well, from what I can tell, any conclusion that isn't the GPL seems to indicate a flaw in whoever's argumentation. :) -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
