You've suggested that some people confuse open source with the GPL,
but I don't think anybody on this list has that confusion.
Certainly many companies use xBSD licensed code, just as many
companies use GPL code. I don't see that either point proves that
the OSSAL would be useful.
I am in
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the
purpose of
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
ability to create proprietary software, even though the
non-core parts are most likely open and available to the
public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Correct, but the BSD license does not
My employer has asked me to explore creation of open source software for the
insurance industry, specifically to explore a policy administration system.
I would love assistance with two things:
1. The opportunity to talk with those who are also employed by insurance
companies that have an
Bruce Shyer is on a -paid for by IBM- team. Tony Stanco is on a -paid for
by IBM team-. Ed Black is -bought and paid for by- IBM. (smile). Before
you jump too quick to conclusions, ask IBM and get back to me. By the way
the CCIA mission statement on its website (www.ccianet.org) reads: CCIA's
Ken Brown scripsit:
[...] is on a -paid for by IBM- team. [...] is on a -paid for
by IBM team-. [...] is -bought and paid for by- IBM. (smile).
This is offensive. Please stop it. Publishing private mail is even more
offensive. Please don't do it. Ethnic slurs are totally unacceptable.
Sean Chittenden scripsit:
A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to
businesses. A language who's modules are all GPL is a language of
little use to a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the
wheel. On the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are
available under
Sean Chittenden scripsit:
Agreed. Simply trying to point out that there are several different
points of views surrounding software development and the two biggest,
IMHO, are those who doodle out code for personal or internal
consumption, and those who are trying to turn a commercial product.
I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from
IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that
people who are above money sell. Linux is a business product. It makes
money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc.
Sean Chittenden wrote:
So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the
modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it
matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive
license?
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Businesses who create
commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT
licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary
A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to businesses. A
language who's modules are all GPL is a language of little use to
a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. On
the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are
available under a BSD/MIT license, is
So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the
modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it
matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive
license?
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and
Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use
(indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use
proprietary software.'' As I and others have pointed
Sean Chittenden scripsit:
Bah! Who would bother with interpreters?
It depends. Perl is more than satisfactory for what I want to do, because
I don't have to serve up stuff at anywhere near your volume, since Reuters's
business isn't based on volume. As for the servers running it, the cost
Sean Chittenden scripsit:
That's a smart business for reusing someone else's
wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the
perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other
businesses. *shudder*
Well, patents expire after 20 years, the GPL after 95.
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart
Sean Chittenden wrote:
If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the
GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that
effort.
If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under
the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module,
This license has been sitting around for over a month, and nobody has
said anything. Maybe it's because it's obviously open source, but as
committee members, I'd like to hear it explicitly from your mouths (or
keyboards rather) to report back to the board.
It's actually a fairly interesting
Sean Chittenden writes:
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are
On Sep 26, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Russell Nelson wrote:
Sean Chittenden writes:
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary
Russell Nelson scripsit:
It's actually a fairly interesting license. It's very like the
modified BSD license in that you can do anything you want including
relicense. Where it gets interesting is that if you publish changes
and DON'T require a written license for your derivative work, you
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart business for
Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the
GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per
se, and more concerned about the -community- being
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
I wouldn't worry about such a thing myself, mind you--forks against
the wishes of the author are very rare in practice, and I can't think
of a single succesful fork which changed the licensing conditions.
The bison/byacc fork was OK with the author but did change
Ernie Prabhakar writes:
It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the GPL. That
is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per se, and
more concerned about the -community- being split by
26 matches
Mail list logo
