Subject: Re: Which license best fits this need?
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:57:38 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Ryan Cross wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM, <james@architectbook.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Its generally best to expect everyone to contribute. If a company isn't
> based on technology, then they will likely not be modifying the code and
> thus not have anything to contribute anyways, so explicitly trying to say
> they don't have to contribute is probably wasted effort.

Distinctions like this between kinds of companies is a bad game to play, 
as the idea of who is a "software vendor" is getting really really fuzzy. 
Is Tivo a software vendor?  Intel?  A consulting shop that writes software 
on spec but uses open source underneath it?  A difference as huge as that 
between the GPL and BSD shouldn't be left to such a fuzzy definition. 
Treat everyone the same - either require the quid pro quo, or don't.  Make 
that decision based on your sense of your licensee community and the 
existing competing products.

 	Brian