For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

[Sean Chittenden]

[snip]

>  > Well..there are those within the "community" to which the GPL is a
>  > hindrance, plain and simple.
> 
> The only reason I can see for this is because you wish to siphon
> work out of the community's tank.

And the problem with that is?  If I'm a business that makes money by
shipping/selling a product that is derived from multiple open source
software components, and contribute back to the community, where's the
problem?

>  > Those of us who own small businesses have needs that are not
>  > being met by currently defined OSI approved licenses,
> 
> Then devise a license which fits under the Open Source Definition.
> No worries, mate.

As a widget maker, a language author, and someone who works on a dozen
different things that are all based off of BSDL software, my big gripe
is to prevent contributions that are GPL'ed, to prevent GPL'ed forks,
and to have contributions rely only on OSSA/BSD/MIT-like licenses.
How can I publish a license that as the antithesis of the GPL without
someone complaining that it conflicts with the GPL or violates the OSD
(even though it violates the OSD in the same way the GPL does[1])?

[snip]

-sc

[1] GPL "discriminates" against widget makers wishing to make closed
    source products.

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