Why?

[Jan Dockx]

Why do organizations that release software under a permissive, 
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the 
difference between BSD and public domain?
I understand the need for a license, the use of copyright law, to keep 
software free through copy-left. But if you are not interested in 
keeping your software free, then why would you release your software 
with a license?

There is a lot of talk about the possible appropriation of open work by 
others, and the possible adverse effect on the original authors (a 
third party might claim intellectual copyrights and sew you). Are there 
any documented cases of such events? Is this even a real threat? I can 
only find vague references like "in some cases some firms went nasty" 
(e.g., The Scope of Open Source Licensing, Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole, 
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lernertirole2.pdf), and it begins to 
sound like an urban myth (subliminal Coca Cola ads in movie theaters, 
anybody? :-P).

And why is there a disclaimer? Are we really afraid that we will be 
sued for damages by something we give away for free (as in free beer)? 
Are there any documented cases of this happening? Or is this 
self-inflicted FUD?


Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Dockx

PeopleWare NV - Head Office
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66

PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25

http://www.peopleware.be/


"The straightforward truth of the matter is free unmoderated chat isn't 
safe," said Geoff Sutton, European general manager of Microsoft MSN.
<http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5081203.html>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3