I think that you need to make a distinction. My approach for OSS has been this: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
<http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd>If you follow that, you are OSS. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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== > >
