The GPL is still OSD compliant, even considering #9. The GPL does not constrain distribution, only linking. Distribution is only relevant in the context of linking. (E.g., you dynamically link a proprietary plugin via a standard interface to a GPL app - that's OK _unless_ you _also_ distribute it along with the GPL app, then you get a borderline case)
The OSI has only been founded to remove the ideological edge from free software and make it more palatable for business. That's a good thing. That does not mean the FSF's initial goals are totally nuts. Whether you prefer a strict license that ensures freedom for the user, or a permissive license that gives freedom to developers but allows them to take away freedom for users is a topic that's much argued about. But it's no use, it's just something that two reasonable people may have different opinions about. And it depends on the situation too. Cheers, Stefan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > 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== > > > > > > >
