On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 12:29 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote: > I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name > is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
I think this may be right pragmatically, but is it simply that lawyers for these companies have a knee-jerk reaction of panic whenever the GPL is mentioned. There are clearly situations and uses for which GPL code simply cannot be used in an organization creating proprietary code, but to have a blanket statement of "no GPL code" is actually to cut the organization off from a huge resource that can be used to generate profit and still play fair with the FOSS community. Having written the previous email and the above, it occurs to me that we should stop seeing this as a FOSS vs proprietary war where one must win at the expense of the other, and ask the question how can both be nice to each other so that proprietary makes money and they and FOSS interwork together appropriately. Clearly Microsoft will not be involved in this collaborative atmosphere, given their historical statements, but they should not be seen as thought leaders here. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
