For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

[Sean Chittenden]

[snip]

> But you haven't made your point as to why a "BSD+anti-copyleft" is
> more sellable, unless your customer is MicroSoft, or other company
> hoping to segment the world of open source software into as many
> incompatible islands as possible.

By and large, the GPL isn't attractive to software widget
manufacturers.  By ensuring a set of components that a widget
manufacturer uses will always be available to them, there in lies the
appeal.  OSSAL software is something that widget makers can depend on.
BSD isn't a sure thing, OSSAL is.

> > The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and
> > becomes usable to other businesses.  *shudder*
> 
> It only took you two paragraphs to break your promise to maintain
> the distinction between closed source and commercial.  GPL software
> is extremely usable in business.[1]

*sigh* I defined what business means to me in the context of this
discussion and am fully aware of that there are other business models
other than widget manufacturers.  Why is getting into a semantical
debate that important?  (btw, I checked and I didn't promise anything:
please don't try and obligate me to something I didn't obligate myself
to.)

> If you can't keep your promise on the distinction, don't post any
> more.

Is it really that big of a deal if I call a widget manufacturer a
business?  Widget manufacturers are by and large businesses, though as
stated above, I know the opposite isn't exclusively true.  -sc

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