For Approval By: S-GPL

[zhihang wang]

I have read your article in detail. I still considered that my license has
more advantageous  than the existing open source license.
First, the programing source is open.
Second, the contributor of this project has the opportunity to obtain money
easily.
As you denoted in your article, GPL is "poison pill". Other models, such as
the proprietary open source model,  is contradict to the spirit of open
source.
The main difference between my license and the QT license is that the
contributors of this project have the right to sell the project to
commercial customers. So I think my license should be also be open source
license.



On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> zhihang wang wrote:
>
>> Thus someone [working on the GPL project] can only contribute to this
>> project in their SPARE TIME
>>
> Of course reality contradicts this theory.
>
> To get a start toward understanding how this could possibly be the case,
> read http://perens.com/works/articles/Economic.html
> especially the part on "Enabling Technology vs. Business Differentiation".
> This will explain what parts of a program a business must keep proprietary,
> and what parts it can share.
> Then read
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3801396/Bruce-Perens-Combining-GPL-and-Proprietary-Software.htm
> on how to combine GPL and proprietary software, to see how businesses can
> work with the GPL and keep what needs to be proprietary separate from the
> GPL.
> Then read
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3803101_1/Bruce-Perens-How-Many-Open-Source-Licenses-Do-You-Need.htm
> especially the part about when a business might want to use the GPL.
>
>   Thanks
>
>   Bruce
>



-- 
Best Regards
zhihang wang