Subject: Re: Ransom GPL Licensing:
From: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller <robin@roblimo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:32:19 -0600

>
>
>when a corporate executive, stock broker or politician
>steals ten times that much money, it is considered merely "white collar
>crime".  they are treated like gentlemen, and in many cases go to federal
>"country club" prisons that offer fully stocked libraries, computers and
>cable tv in the cells and, of course, tennis courts.
>

Those prisons aren't all that nice. I've visited friends in a few of 
them. :)

>i'm not saying it should be renamed warm-fuzzy-bunny licensing just for the
>sake of a "brand", but something that doesn't evoke visions of tied-up and
>blindfolded family members with guns to their heads might encounter just a
>bit less market resistence...
>

Oh, I can't help myself here. This whole fsb conversation gets too 
deadly-serious sometimes, and this is one of those times.  I am suddenly 
tempted to submit the "Fuzzy Bunny License" to OpenSource.org and see 
what happens.

I mean, why *shouldn't* there be a Fuzzy Bunny License that allows free 
redistribution as long as you include the phrase, "I am a Fuzzy Bunny 
and I love you," in the source code?

More seriously, and something that rightfully belongs in a separate 
message under a new topic... I don't think anyone has put any real 
thought into the idea of the development process itself as intellectual 
propery, possibly more valuable than the code it produces. This may be a 
key to making money with F/OSS that some are doing but have never fully 
articulated. This idea came up during a (f2f) conversation between me 
and Peter Gallagher, president of a small open source-based development 
company that specializes in federal government contract work. It's a 
concept that merits discussion.

- Robin