Sean Chittenden writes: > Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming > language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that > the module author can do is release the module under business friendly > terms. 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.
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary license. It isn't. It is, at its worst, identical to a proprietary license. Since you claim to believe that proprietary licensing is good and you want to encourage proprietary licensing, why have you written a license which says that one kind of proprietary license is good, and yet another is bad? Could you try to explain this to me? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
