On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 23:32, Ken Foskey wrote: > On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:35, Benno wrote: > > > Umm, I have to disagree here. The BSD folk want a commons for *anyone* > > to leverage. The GPL folk want a commands for anyone except > > proprietary product developers to leverage.[1] > > OK let me flip this with a little story. I am a corporation, I am > considering releasing my code to the FOSS community. After some advice > I consider BSD to be the one true free license (my opinion shines > through) and release. Company B my main competitor picks up the > application and adds some refinements. Because they have a better > product they start getting my clients and my openness has cost me money.
The Ogg Vorbis people use both the GPL and BSD style licenses IIRC. They use BSD style license for the CODEC spec so that anyone can write an implementation of the CODEC. This is good for helpng the .ogg format to be widely adopted. They use GPL syle licenses for their code so that nobody can simply lift their implementation of the CODEC and quietlly embed in it a proprietary system. To me this is an excellent example of using the strengths of each license. BSD to encourage widespread usage, GPL to keep implementations free and open. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
