Very well said. You clearly understand and were able to accurately elaborate on what I was saying.
The most important question you raise is "is it worth it?" Does Binc serve to gain more than it could potentially lose (here comes risk :-) ) by going to a more open license? What kind of market is there for an IMAP-based product at this point anyway? I would think that there probably isn't much of a market at the moment (despite the fact that I dislike exchange). Given that, there is less likelihood of a business coming in and "stealing" something. However, this also means there is less chance of a business contributing. Without any large factors weighing in in favor of the BSD-style license I'm with you on your inertia argument: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. An argument showing that at this point the most important thing for Binc is to gain more corporate involvement would definitely sway me toward advocating a BSD-style license (whereas now I'm just pointing out its merits). -Bob On 8/8/05 9:09 PM, "Kyle Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday, August 8 at 08:04 PM, quoth Bob Van Zant: >> Assume a company that abides by license agreements. My feeling is that >> a company is more likely to incorporate software that uses a BSD-style >> license than the GPL because it is in -their- best interest to do so. >> Given that, I again feel that companies (more specifically, >> engineering departments) are inclined to give back -some- of their >> changes (particularly bug fixes). Whereas the GPL requires that they >> give back -all- of their changes, including those that may be trade >> secrets. > > Ahh, I see. So, if I'm interpreting your point correctly (correct me if > I'm wrong) essentially (for whatever reason), it is based on the > assertion (backed up to some degree) that companies are more likely to > use a BSD-licensed program than a GPL-licensed program. Then, when a > company uses a program, sometimes it gives back a little something. The > logical conclusion being: if you want companies to use (and possibly > contribute) to an open-source project, you go with the license that > doesn't give pointy-haired-people the willies. Fair enough so far? > > As you're the only one putting up a reasonable (well, *any* argument, > but as luck would have it, your argument is reasonable) argument for > changing the license, let's examine this a little more closely (I'd > contribute ideas for your side of the argument, but I don't have that > sort of experience in the private sector). > > It seems to me that there are two critical points here worth examining: > first, that companies are more likely to use a BSD-licensed program than > a GPL-licensed program, and second that corporate use and possible > contribution is something that is desireable. Perhaps there are more key > points that could be made? > > So, the second point is easy to think about. Unless Andreas is more of a > purist (for example, DJB or Theo DeRaadt) who simply wants to do his > own, great project for the primary purpose of being his and being good > and showing what he can do, then he probably wouldn't *mind* having lots > of patches from all over the place. And corporate use may raise the > visibility of Binc (maybe). > > The first point is a little harder. You've explained that your > experience has been that GPL'd software is something corporations > explicitly avoid. I haven't had much experience in the private sector > recently, but when I did (four years ago), we didn't pay much mind to > the license. We were developing our own in-house software that happened > to work with others (like MySQL, Linux, GTK+, OpenSSH, etc.). What > mattered more to us was: > > 1. Does it do the job we need done? > 2. Is it being actively maintained? > 3. How secure is it? > 4. How fast is it? > 5. How expensive is it? > > At the time, we'd rather spend the money on better hardware. But we > weren't altering the software, just using it, so... that may be a far > less useful anecdote than your own experience. I would guess, though, > that most companies don't do a lot of modifying of open-source software > and are content simply to use it. > > A final point I think is worthy of consideration... > > There's no question that the GPL is more restrictive than, say, the BSD > (or Apache or Artistic) license. The real question to answer is: what > does the BincIMAP project gain from that license? Does it have more to > gain by changing the license? > > I see three things in favor of the GPL rather than another OSS license: > inertia, idealism, and a sense of "fair play". Inertia is obvious; I > mean idealism in a Stallman-esque "all software should be free" sense; > and by "fair play" I mean the sense that Andreas did all this work to > get Binc where it is and somebody shouldn't be able to go and make a > profit off of his work (regardless of the "risk" they may undergo to do > it) (this last sense may just be a personal bias... I've written my own > small OSS software where I'm the primary author, and I don't like the > idea that anyone can just take it and sell it without so much as telling > me). On the other hand, I see two major things in favor of BSD: a larger > sense of openness, and the possibility of (greater?) corporate > involvement. > > Am I missing anything? > > ~Kyle
