Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: simo <>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:15:40 -0400

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:39 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "simo" == simo  <> writes:
>     simo> But there are also many problems in contracts v. licenses.
>     simo> For Joe the common FS programmer it is much easier to stay
>     simo> away from contract law.
> Problems, yes, but I don't believe any lawyer would tell you that it's
> easier.  Larry Rosen, for one, clearly advocates using a contract---
> just use your favorite license, but get licensees to sign it.  How is
> that "harder" than a bare license?  You can still use copyright law
> for enforcement if you think that's easier, too.
> Sure, managing the paperwork can be somewhat annoying, but that's a
> different issue from what I think you're getting at.  And surely if we
> (as a community) decided that's the way to go, several hackers would
> come up with some software to implement it efficiently and open source
> it, and it would quickly become a non-issue.  I recommend we hire Tom
> Lord to write it. :-)

I am not sure, it is that easy, contract law imposes much greater
obligations on both parties. Liability is one of the most dangerous
thing for example. (And in some countries more than others).

>     simo> You either seek the release of the source or stop the
>     simo> distribution of infringing binaries.
> Not me.  If I use a license that requires release of source, I want
> the source released.  Wasn't that clear from my post?  That was my #1
> reason for preferring a contractual license.

Well that's depend on how you strongly do you feel about a violation I
suppose. I am generally benevolent, I do not want your code if you do
not want to share it, but then do not pretend to use mine. I always give
the choice of stopping distribution, but that's my preference. If you
like to use the GPL as a lever to make others code available against
their will that's up to you.