For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

Russell Nelson nelson at
Sun Sep 28 19:02:49 UTC 2003

Sean Chittenden writes:
 > 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.  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.

The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're
treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary
license.  It isn't.  It is, at its worst, identical to a proprietary
license.  Since you claim to believe that proprietary licensing is
good and you want to encourage proprietary licensing, why have you
written a license which says that one kind of proprietary license is
good, and yet another is bad?

Could you try to explain this to me?

--My blog is at  | Can I recommend python?
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Just a thought.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list