For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

[Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet]

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
> language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that
> the module author can do is release the module under business friendly
> terms.

The author can release a binary-only module under OSSAL terms.
How is that friendly to other software developers or users?

>  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,
you have to duplicate that effort.

If people don't like the business consequences of releasing
under GPL, why would they release source at all? 

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3