I have Fortune 1000 clients myself, and frankly speaking in real world they don't even care what type of license the free stuff has. Why? Simple. Because 90% of the time these companies buy commercial support and being a commercial customer it's very easy for them to get a commercial version of the software for a reasonable price. But the latter not happening very often - most of the time they never publish their in-house software since it's their competitive advantage - and thus no reason to be concerned about license type. As to "legal uncertainties" - frankly I don't know, my lawyer liked it, knowing how complex the law can be I am sure any type of license free or non-free can potentially bring legal issues - it's imperfect world. Steve Underwood wrote: > paul.degt wrote: > >> Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined >> more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser >> point of view. >> >> > While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3 > any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and has stood the test of time. > However a number of large companies have banned their employees from > working on anything involving GPL 3 code, because of legal > uncertainties, especially with regard to patents. > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Freeswitch-users mailing list > Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > >
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org