For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

Sean Chittenden sean at
Sat Sep 27 06:29:50 UTC 2003

> > > > 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.
> Since you apparently want to reduce duplication of effort, why is
> this case not a problem?

I can't eliminate duplication, but I can do what I can to reduce it.
When placed on a scale, being able to take a bit of code, internalize
it and use it in a product is more important to me than reducing
duplication of effort.

> > > 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.
> When I started open source licensing work, it seemed logical that
> the only reasonable license for a proprietary software vendor is BSD
> and its friends. But once you realize that the GPL's nature is not a
> threat to _you_, it becomes much more attractive. In fact it helps
> getting people in your project, because those people know that no
> one can take their contributions and make them proprietary.

I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them proprietary.
More correctly.  In my own context, I want to be able to use the
fruits of my labor.  The contributions that I seek are from other
widget makers using the same tool for their widget.



Sean Chittenden
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list