On 01/03/2010 05:35:14, Frank Shute wrote: > To be honest, I think the licence puts off most of the commercial > entities. Which is a *good* thing.
Which is utterly bizarre. The BSD / Apache / MIT/Xorg style license is
considerably less onerous for any business to comply with than the GPL
(especially the most recent versions).
Part of the reason I suspect is perceptual. There's more BSD stuff
around than you might think. The BSD license (at least in the 2- or 3-
clause forms) perhaps makes it too easy for a company to use
BSD-licensed technology in a hidden way. Sure, the copyright of the
original authors will be acknowledged, but in the small print hidden at
the end of the manual, not in some obvious place. The GPL does tend to
cause the license terms to be displayed at the slightest opportunity.
Not that I propose reintroducing the advertising clause -- getting
companies to give greater prominence to their use of BSD technologies
is a social and marketing problem that doesn't need to be solved by some
legal blunt instrument. Then again, the fact that BSDs on the whole
don't go in for aggressive evangelism appeals to me.
It would be interesting to see what the breakdown of different licenses
was for the open source code produced by eg. Google (which most people
would automatically assume is a Linuxista company.) I've a
sneaking suspicion that their default is to use the Apache license,
except where the viral provisions of the GPL prevent that.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard, Flat 3
Black Earth Consulting Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
Free and Open Source Solutions Tel: +44 (0)1843 580647
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
