Which license best fits this need?

[Ryan Cross]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Brian Behlendorf <brian at hyperreal.org>wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Ryan Cross wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM, <james at architectbook.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I guess I was looking for guidance on encouraging enterprises whose
>>> primary
>>> business model isn't technology to not have to contribute vs software
>>> vendors whom I want to force to contribute and which license best fits
>>> this
>>> need
>>>
>>
>> Its generally best to expect everyone to contribute. If a company isn't
>> based on technology, then they will likely not be modifying the code and
>> thus not have anything to contribute anyways, so explicitly trying to say
>> they don't have to contribute is probably wasted effort.
>>
>
> Distinctions like this between kinds of companies is a bad game to play, as
> the idea of who is a "software vendor" is getting really really fuzzy. Is
> Tivo a software vendor?  Intel?  A consulting shop that writes software on
> spec but uses open source underneath it?  A difference as huge as that
> between the GPL and BSD shouldn't be left to such a fuzzy definition. Treat
> everyone the same - either require the quid pro quo, or don't.  Make that
> decision based on your sense of your licensee community and the existing
> competing products.
>
>        Brian
>

Thanks Brian, I think you said what I was trying to say only much better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080806/28d477e4/attachment.html>