> 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.
exactly mine too. The FSF is more strict (point 9 doesn't match
their train of thought).
but alas, very off topic.
FB
>
>
> 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==
>
>
>
