[Fwd: Re: For Approval: The Azure License]

[Carlo Piana [OSI]]

Kenneth Ballenegger wrote:
>
> I don't mind the license being GPL2-incompatible. I've always been a
> firm believer that the GPL stifles innovation and goes against the
> spirit of open-source. A friend of mine blogged a pretty convincing
> argument here: http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/825/getting-pretty-lonely
>
Dear Kenneth,

You might well not care about GPL2 incompatibility, as even the FSF has
not cared when drafting the GPL v.3. The difference is that that was for
a rational and non insubstantial reason, something I don't see here, as
the Azure license is simply (yet another) very permissive license, most
of which are conversely very easily compatible with both versions of the
GPL (I am unsure if this one is incompatible anyway).

And you might even believe that GPL is against the spirit of
open-source, if this statement has any meaning. Or to say that it is
complete rubbish, fair enough, this is a Free World where anybody can
have their opinions (at least as far as I am concerned).

What I don't understand is in what a copyleft license stifles
innovation. This is a notion that  I refuse altogether because, unlike
with patents, if you don't like the license of a particular software
application, you have the option to rewrite one of your own, and still
benefit from reading and studying what the GPL- (or any other strong
copyleft license) covered application has done. Innovation is not
stifled, conversely, is enhanced by it, as you can rewrite AND learn
from others [0]. Simply you cannot fork and relicense. Big deal.

What most people don't get (I am sure you are not in this lot, so are
the other list members) is that permissive licenses permit very much,
including making some software application entirely proprietary by
extending it and not releasing back the extensions (you can argue that
the same goes for releasing it back under a copyleft license,
compatibility is almost never an issue this way). This stifles
innovation exactly, if not worse, as what you claim copyleft does [0].
The argument seems lame to me.

Anyway,  I don't personally see why your license should not be approved:
only it increases the background noise and licensing complexity that
some call "proliferation". Bad idea, as writing new licenses is a bad
idea, almost invariably, including when I do.

With best regards

Carlo


[0] contrary to what happens with proprietary and permissive license,
with copyleft licenses you receive the right to demand the releasing of
the source code of modifications. Having which is exactly my
understanding of the spirit of opensource.


========================
Avv. Carlo Piana

Piazza Castello 24 - 20121 Milan - Italy
phone +39 02 72 00000 3
fax +39 02 86 90 901
http://law.piana.eu (firm)
http://www.piana.eu (blog)
http://arraylaw.eu (array)
http://identi.ca/carlopiana/all (microblog)


**NEW** gpg/pgp public key: http://www.piana.eu/gpg
Fingerprint 9046 9688 5465 DDF8 D712 4A7C 7F30 CB15 4580 F067
#old key was revoked, please use the new one#

Law is Freedom, and Freedom is all the rest.
Protecting digital freedom, your rights!