you were arguing against the fact that you cannot make up some arbitrary license that does not meet the standards of the FSF's free software definition or the OSI open source definition and in good faith call that open source. that's not RMS's arbitrary rules, that's what OSS is all about. sorry, I share your reservations about the thinking behind the FSF, but I don't get that rant.
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:18 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > many OSS developers are both. and to a degree, I understand it. I don't, as both have nothing in common. > a lot of thought has been put into the FOSS thing. now if anybody can claim > any arbitrary license to be FOSS, that's just destroying a trade mark. I don't see why it's so important to obey the rules of RMS, is it a coolness thing or something? Yes I'm a BSD sympathizer, I really don't get why software licensing has to be used to push the agenda of 'property is evil'. FB > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids > > commercial usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards. > > you do that > and > > call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-) > > heh :) > > but, at the same time, people who nittpick over that are not > developers but politicians with an agenda that has little to do with > software engineering. > > FB > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing > > > (we do that). > > > > > > > > > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you > > decide > > > how > > > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's > > > your work, you > > > decide. > > > > > > > > > Actually no. > > > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if > > > you are building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the license. > > > Nothing else would do that. > > > > Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for > > distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the > > user can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode > > and always has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the > > non-commercial > remark > > is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a > > license, another person isn't even legally able to download the > sourcecode. > > > > Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some > > people believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are > compatible, > > as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is > > of course a non-issue. > > > > FB==
