The BSD _is_ compliant with both the FSF's and the OSI's rules. I really still don't know what your rant is about.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > you were arguing against the fact that you cannot make up some > arbitrary > > license that does not meet the standards of the FSF's free software > > definition or the OSI open source definition and in good faith call > that > > open source. that's not RMS's arbitrary rules, that's what OSS is all > about. > > sorry, I share your reservations about the thinking behind the FSF, > but I > > don't get that rant. > > The BSD camp sees open source software software where the source > is > open and it has a non-restrictive license. That more or less clashes > with > how FSF sees open source software. It's beyond the scope of the topic > though. > > IMHO what RMS thinks and what FSF thinks what open source is is > really irrelevant. A person writes code, opens that for everyone and > allows > everyone to use it and distribute it under a list of restrictions. If > you > then don't obey one or more FSF rules, who cares, it's your code, not > FSF's. > If it's not compliant with some FSF list of rules and 'thus' it's not > OSS is > pure politics and actually also marketing: the source is important the > list > of rules when you're allowed to use it. > > FB > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:18 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > > 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===
