Subject: Re: Which license best fits this need?
From: "Ryan Cross" <ryanecross@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:12:49 +1000
Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:12:49 +1000
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.org>wrote:

> 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
>

Thanks Brian, I think you said what I was trying to say only much better.




On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.org> wrote:
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

Thanks Brian, I think you said what I was trying to say only much better.