This is quickly off-topic for this list again. I wonder if there needs to be an @opensource.org discussion group for discussing the business model and legal analysis of license agreements beyond the question of approving them as OSI compliant?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: > way to word the same idea (protection of free access to code, even > though that protected free access might not be in the best interest of > the developer). I guess I disagree that this discussion is clarifying things, and suspect it is making things even more confusing. When a business chooses a copyleft or non-copyleft free software license it is best when it relates to ones own business model. For code I author having a derivative work be in a non-free software license is as much opposed to my business model as a non-free software licensed package having it's copyright violated through being added illegally to a P2P network. I rely on "resource multiplication" as the justification for doing the extra work (beyond coding new software for clients) to release the software to the public. When people make non-free derivatives they are "taking from me without paying" in the same way as "software pirates" are claimed to of non-free software. Talking of freedom in this context ends up based more on personal politics than anything else. > - Copyleft licenses maximize the freedom to access the code > - BSD-like licenses maximize the freedom to develop the code The main feature of a BSD-like (non-copyleft) license is that it allows non-free derivatives. Non-free software minimizes the freedom to develop derivative code of that non-free software. So +1-1=0, meaning that BSD-like licenses do not maximize the freedom to develop code as it appears in the short term, but in fact minimizes long-term freedom to develop the code. I believe there are times when non-copyleft free software licenses are ideal, such as one is trying to provide code as documentation of a standard. The motivation for code creation is standards creation, and commercial interests such as royalty-generation and resource-multiplication do not need to factor into it. I personally see few cases where non-copyleft licenses appropriately apply to commercial FLOSS software creation and distribution. I see non-copyleft licenses as a "giveaway expense" that ends up contrary or at least outside of my commercial FLOSS business. There may be some loss-leader aspect to the business analysis, but that becomes more like the standards creation example. While this giveaway may be very appropriate for the public and volunteer sectors where the motivations are not commercial but political or social, I see the private sector motivations being very different. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign. A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
