Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:59:24 -0800

On 10/27/02 9:27 AM, "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 
>  5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment"
>  means the use or distribution of the Original Work or
>  Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work
>  or Derivative Works may be accessed or used by anyone
>  other than You, whether the Original Work or Derivative
>  Works are distributed to those persons, made available
>  as an application intended for use over a computer
>  network, or used to provide services or otherwise
>  deliver content to anyone other than You. As an express
>  condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree
>  that any External Deployment by You shall be deemed a
>  distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms
>  of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein.
> 
> I couldn't tell from Tim's comments whether he thinks such a "viral"
> effect may be good or bad for open source software.

Well, I actually think that such a viral effect would be a terrible thing
for open source software.

That being said, I originally put this issue on the radar because I believe
that if Richard or anyone else has certain goals for his or her software,
constructing a license to pursue those goals is his or her right.  And of
course, it's the customer's right to choose not to use that software.

In general, I believe that the GPL and other viral licenses that prohibit
mixing with proprietary software will produce less total value for end users
and software developers than BSD-style licenses.  But I also believe they
are sometimes necessary to protect a piece of software that will otherwise
be particularly targeted for embrace and extend.

I like the ability to choose strategically.

-- 
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com