License Committee Report for September 2009

[Giancarlo Niccolai]

In data lunedì 16 novembre 2009 23:28:09, Bruce Perens ha scritto:
: > Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
> > We want this bundle to be distributable under the commercial entity most
> > favored choice. If the language was LGPL, it CANNOT distribute the whole
> > bundle under another license. It has to distribute the engine as LGPL,
> > and then it can use it from a licensed-whatsoever closed source software.
> 
> And your license goes away entirely, right? In which case he doesn't
> have to do what you say. The truth is that your license doesn't really
> go away. It's just that the commercial user doesn't have to convey a
> copy of your license with the work.

Of course it doesn't go away. It is still in effect. For example, the clause of 
non-patentability (that from Apache 2.0) is still there. 

What would be the point of having a license if it "goes away"?

> 
> > Scary enough to keep any commercial entity at bay and away.
> 
> The last time I checked, GNOME was distributed with commercial Unix
> distributions as well as Linux. One of my customers is putting it in car
> dashboards.

I don't see as the example may be relevant. You can sell GPL software, it's 
stated everywhere in every GNU paper. This has nothing to do with MIXING the 
code a commercial entity writes with the code written by an open source 
project in one unique final application.

I think the discussion is going out of tracks here; sorry if I cannot reply so 
promptly anymore.

Bests,
Giancarlo Niccolai.