On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey <co...@bitworthy.net> wrote: > No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck, > one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're practically > bedfellows.
I'm just noting that usually licensing is looked at as a continuum of commercial vs free, and rarely as restrictive vs non-restrictive (or heck, complex vs simple), and occasionally it's useful to consider the other dimensions and how the particular perspective of each unique beast affects the conversation and analysis. So, for me, it's intriguing that in both the scenario where you want to retain complete IP control over your code and the scenario where you hope to ensure complete IP public longevity, the best defense seems to be restrictive licensing. But, from the perspective where you have public code and want to garner mindshare, there are a multitude of facets that affect that choice, and having a multiplicity of licensing options may improve the fecundity/fidelity/longevity of said code in more complex ways than can be readily surmised from the previous perspective. -Jack (continuing to contribute nothing to the good of the order)
