OSI's war on corporate licenses
bruce at perens.com
Tue Apr 12 21:41:33 UTC 2005
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>OK, just when I thought I understood, I am confused again.
>Bruce defined the term as: "...licenses that grant rights on new
>modifications to the initial developer that are not granted to all of the
>Chuck then expands the conversation to use BSD as an example of such a
>license. It doesn't take long to read the BSD license, and I do not see any
>asymmetrical license grants in that license as defined by Bruce. In fact,
>the BSD does not grant any licenses to any modifications to anyone from what
>I can see. Based on Bruce's definition, the BSD should not be considered
The BSD is not an asymmetrical license. I never said that it was.
It does grant everyone the right to take a product private and bring out
differentiated versions. This is sometimes appropriate, depending on
your business purpose.
It is not the license that I put on work that I do with my own funding,
becuase my intent is to improve Open Source, not to be the unpaid
employee of some proprietary software company. They can contact me for a
commercial license. However, I am happy to apply the BSD license when
someone pays for my work and requests that license.
More information about the License-discuss