For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
nelson at crynwr.com
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
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 angry-economist.russnelson.com | 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 http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss