Subject: Re: OSI enforcement?
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0800

Quoting Ph.D. (hawkins@cephira.com):

> There are deep philosophical divides between advocates of copyleft
> licenses (such as the FSF's GPL) and advocates of permissive licenses
> (such as BSDL)....

Mu.

Is there actually _anyone_ who asserts that copyleft licences are always
a desirable choice, or who asserts that simple permissive licences are?
I don't think anyone at OSI does -- and FSF definitely doesn't, either.
(FSF has recommended one or the other, in different cases.)

A licence is a grant of permissions that, in context of applicable law,
is a legal instrument that carries out the copyright owner's intentions
concerning a covered instance of his/her creative work.  I think most
(sane) people would conclude that the particular legal instrument that
will prove desirable depends on the circumstances and the copyright
owner's intentions.

> Legally there is no restriction on using GPL sofware in commercial works, 
> but it requires you to release the source code to your work and allow it 
> to be given away for free by anyone who wishes. Practically speaking that 
> means you cannot sell your work (or at least, can't sell it more than 
> once). 

Are you willing to wager money on this assertion, Donovan?  ;->