For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

John Cowan jcowan at
Fri Sep 26 17:10:53 UTC 2003

Sean Chittenden scripsit:

> Bah!  Who would bother with interpreters?  

It depends.  Perl is more than satisfactory for what I want to do, because
I don't have to serve up stuff at anywhere near your volume, since Reuters's
business isn't based on volume.  As for the servers running it, the cost of them
is sunk cost, so it doesn't matter how inefficiently I use them as long as
I don't exceed their limits (which is very unlikely).

> I'd like a more friendly syntax like Ruby.  The core of the language
> is an actual compiler and the resulting code links to my so.  

So the license on the compiler is irrelevant, since normal compilers don't
encumber compiled code in any way.  By GPLing the compiler, you could
prevent people from making incompatible changes to the language that you
don't get to find out the implementations of.

> *cheers on TenDRA*

We'll see.

> Fair enough, in my case, business means a "a widget producing business
> that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel nor give away the plans to the
> kingdom."

Where, in turn, "widget" means not "any commodity" (as is usual in discussions
of economics), but specifically "proprietary software product".

John Cowan  jcowan at
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths
led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen.  I am the clue-finder,
the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number.  --Bilbo
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list