<html><body>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. Don't really care about the whole GPL vs BSD as this is irrelevant and for example purposes only.<br><br>If folks like to talk about GPL, let's acknowledge the simple fact that many corporate lawyers in large enterprises whose primary business model isn't technology tend to eschew using GPL software when it can be linked into applications. Whether their perspective is correct, doesn't really matter. Choosing software that is attractive from a variety of perspectives is more important than solely the philosophy of those who have particular license preferences.<br><br>
<blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px;">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: Which license best fits this need?<br>
From: "Ben Tilly" <btilly@gmail.com><br>
Date: Tue, August 05, 2008 8:01 am<br>
To: <a href="mailto:james@architectbook.com">james@architectbook.com</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:02 AM, <<a onclick="return true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=james%40architectbook.com'); return false;" href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose" mce_href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose">james<b></b>@architectbook.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Are you familiar with OWASP? (<a href="http://www.owasp.org" target="_blank" mce_href="http://www.owasp.org"><a href="http://www.owasp.org">http://www.owasp.org</a></a>) Many of the codebases<br>
> are dual-licensed where the notion of licensing under GPL is to encourage<br>
> contribution by folks truly capable of propelling a project forward while<br>
> also being licensed under BSD so as to not confuse enterprise-type users who<br>
> benefit from the software but may not have the abilities to make it better.<br>
<br>
Dual licensing those two licenses makes no sense to me since many BSD<br>
licenses are GPL compatible. Therefore with just one license you<br>
avoid confusing people while saying the same thing.<br>
<br>
Anyone good with a strong commitment to the GPL should be able to<br>
figure this out on their own, so explicitly licensing under the GPL<br>
doesn't even buy you that.<br>
<br>
> One example says that an Oracle, IBM, Sun, Microsoft, etc could truly make<br>
> OWASP projects better and you wouldn't want them to fork a copy under their<br>
> own brand while companies such as Wal-Mart, Pep Boys, Bob's Discount<br>
> Furniture and other businesses whose primary business model isn't focused on<br>
> IT should be able to use and tweak but with no commitments.<br>
><br>
> Any thoughts on which llicense best fits this need?<br>
<br>
Glancing at the project, it looks like you are taking applications and<br>
improving them. In that case the best thing to do is to always use<br>
the application's license. First of all because your work is<br>
derivative of what you started with, so you can't relicense under<br>
more generous license. But secondly because you would like your work<br>
to be accepted back into the original application.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Ben<br>
</blockquote></body></html>