> > > The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software. > > > > Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL. > > Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the > > ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core > > parts are most likely open and available to the public. > > That's really perverse, Sean. Pretend that the GPL is a proprietary > license for software distributed by the FSF. Let's say that this > business (the FSF) takes a piece of BSD-licensed software, makes > even a trivial modification, and licenses it under their proprietary > license (the GPL). The software leaves the realm of software > modifiable by you, or anyone else who wants to make proprietary > changes. You say this is bad, but it's exactly the same thing that > happens when any other company does the same thing. Why do you want > your license to discriminate against the FSF?
Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it in proprietary products. The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules, ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in (that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a product. Doing a license review is expensive and not necessary with OSSAL because OSSAL bits are always OSSAL (same with the GPL). If I were a dying business or wanted to send a big 'ole f- you to the people in my industry, I'd use the GPL because widget makers couldn't use the GPL'ed code in their widgets. It's like the ultimate tease, which isn't cool in my book of ethics. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
