Anthony, On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Anthony Carrico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Richard Lawrence wrote: > > As for your licensing scheme, Bradley: I guess I don't quite see the > > advantage a BSD license offers. Is it just that it is consistent with > > the Zend licensing, and that there are no problems if your clients need > > to, say, link your code with proprietary libraries? Or do you think a > > BSD license encourages people to contribute to FLOSS more than another > > license? > > Nothing wrong with modified BSD, it is traditional, but a bold choice > would be a public domain waiver: neatly side stepping the license wars. Interesting idea, but there are a couple of problem with this. The laws on public domain vary greatly from country-to-country so it becomes much simpler to use a license which is more widely recognized and explicitly grants permissions. Besides, I'm not sure what rights one would get with public domain (let's assume US law) that they don't get with the New BSD License - can you identify any? The other problem is that we are licensing this software to individual clients, not releasing it to the general public. We are not putting this software up on a website for everyone to download (at least for now). Clients would not be very happy with us taking the web site or web application we custom developed for them and releasing it wholesale to the public (which public domain would imply). What we can do is take reusable components, as it makes sense, and publicly license them. This respects our clients confidentiality but still allows others to benefit from reusable components. Of course, a client can always take the software we've given them and release it to the public as this is within their license. Thanks, Bradley > > > -- > Anthony Carrico > > -- http://bradley-holt.blogspot.com/
