> > > > 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. > > Since you apparently want to reduce duplication of effort, why is > this case not a problem?
I can't eliminate duplication, but I can do what I can to reduce it. When placed on a scale, being able to take a bit of code, internalize it and use it in a product is more important to me than reducing duplication of effort. > > > 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. > > When I started open source licensing work, it seemed logical that > the only reasonable license for a proprietary software vendor is BSD > and its friends. But once you realize that the GPL's nature is not a > threat to _you_, it becomes much more attractive. In fact it helps > getting people in your project, because those people know that no > one can take their contributions and make them proprietary. I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them proprietary. More correctly. In my own context, I want to be able to use the fruits of my labor. The contributions that I seek are from other widget makers using the same tool for their widget. [snip] -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
