For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

[Sean Chittenden]

> > > 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?

It's not, but they have to incur the costs of maintaining it, so
that's their perogotive.

> > 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.

Correct.

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

I don't know how else to say this:

*) "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
*) Reciprocity amongst businesses.
*) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good.
*) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses.

Take your pick of any one of the above.  -sc

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