An explanation of the difficulty of solving licenseproliferation in one sentence

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Fink, Martin R wrote (in part)
 >   When one or two proposals are
> put forth (maybe by OSDL, OSI, and others) and if you think that those
> proposals are actually harmful, then chime in.  The last thing I want is
> to change the system into something that makes it worse.
> 

Of course the OSD+3 proposal (and any proposal) makes it worse, because
artificial controls in a marketplace are always inefficient.

Publishing under an widely incompatible license will indeed supress
the market penetration of your stuff, but the market will not be
affected measurably.  So, I'd say that disparity is enough.  We don't need\
artificial controls, and it is very curious that The Angry Economist doesn't
agree. What do you have to say for yourself Russ?

Further the premise about corporations "giving up" is either
inadvertently faulty or downright deceptive.  I don't give up
on grabbing a bag of potato chips because there are 75 alternatives,
some with Olestra.  And corporations aren't going to ignore code
covered under significant licenses just because OSI approved
50 other also-rans.  They are going to ignore anything covered
under the 50 others, and won't suffer for it.

Finally, mixing is almost never required. Most creators of
derivatives have no need to mix code under two different licenses
because they create adaptations which will retain the license.
So we are arguing over what?  Less than 1% of the reuse cases?

That the percentage of cases which remain is miniscule and of no
practical importance, indicates to me that the impetus behind
the recent sword rattling is about ego, (or some other hidden
motive.)

Charitably, I'd say there is no hidden motive, and that
somebody's ego needed a problem to solve.  Whoever that someone
is should get out of the way.  Since I am not on the board,
and that the board meetings are so secretive, I could not
begin to imagine.