Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:02:49 -0400

Sean Chittenden writes:
 > Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
 > language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that
 > the module author can do is release the module under business friendly
 > terms.  If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under
 > the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that
 > effort.

The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're
treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary
license.  It isn't.  It is, at its worst, identical to a proprietary
license.  Since you claim to believe that proprietary licensing is
good and you want to encourage proprietary licensing, why have you
written a license which says that one kind of proprietary license is
good, and yet another is bad?

Could you try to explain this to me?

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Can I recommend python?
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Just a thought.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3