> >>>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? > > 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. > > Is that correct, Sean?
Eh, it's _a_ concern, but my bigger concern is in keeping code usable to widget manufacturers no matter what. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
