IPL as a burden

Ralf Schwoebel puzzler at intradat.com
Mon Jan 15 22:36:09 UTC 2001

Frank LaMonica wrote:

> but differ from the GPL or LGPL.   Each such license places additional burdens on
> the entire open source community.  Those burdens devolve from the inevitable

Dear Frank,

thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word 
money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies
like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes
from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill.

Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because
we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work
on an operating system, not an application. 
We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for
sources without violating the basics of OpenSource:

Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to
the sources, etc. pp.

This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills.

And by the way:
Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in
Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) 
and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to 
fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US.

best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796 0000

More information about the License-discuss mailing list