> many OSS developers are both. and to a degree, I understand it.
I don't, as both have nothing in common.
> a lot of thought has been put into the FOSS thing. now if anybody can
claim
> any arbitrary license to be FOSS, that's just destroying a trade mark.
I don't see why it's so important to obey the rules of RMS, is it a
coolness thing or something?
Yes I'm a BSD sympathizer, I really don't get why software licensing
has to be used to push the agenda of 'property is evil'.
FB
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:11
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>
> > You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids
> > commercial usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards.
> > you do that
> and
> > call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-)
>
> heh :)
>
> but, at the same time, people who nittpick over that are not
> developers but politicians with an agenda that has little to do with
> software engineering.
>
> FB
>
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
> >
> > > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing
> > > (we do that).
> > >
> > >
> > > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you
> > decide
> > > how
> > > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's
> > > your work, you
> > > decide.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually no.
> > > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if
> > > you are building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the
license.
> > > Nothing else would do that.
> >
> > Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for
> > distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the
> > user can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode
> > and always has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the
> > non-commercial
> remark
> > is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a
> > license, another person isn't even legally able to download the
> sourcecode.
> >
> > Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some
> > people believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are
> compatible,
> > as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is
> > of course a non-issue.
> >
> > FB==
