Re: Source licensing

From: Edward Cherlin <edward_dot_cherlin_at_etssg_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 03:13:24 CDT

On Sunday 09 May 2004 18:13, David Mertz wrote:
> On May 9, 2004, at 7:47 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> > How about, closed proprietary source, published proprietary
> > source, and free software?
> Those look like good phrases to me.
> > You mention a variety of "free" software. Which "free"
> > software model should be used for the licensing/ownership of
> > UC-developed software?
> I actually don't care nearly as much as a lot of people. If I
> were making the decision all by myself, I'd probably say
> Public Domain (or BSDish... the 'B' in there being
> UC-Berkeley, after all).
> But when we went over the discussion back in August, a lot of
> developers felt strongly about the GPL's guarantee that
> proprietary companies not be able to incorporate our code into
> derived, closed/proprietary products.

Me, too. That's my company's business model, and a vital part of
our campaign to bring computers to poor people in developing
countries. (And don't anybody tell me that my concerns are
irrelevant to the US original. They might bring in real money,
if some of the current talks pan out.)

> > Second, I wanted to make the distinction between VoteHere's
> > approach to published software, and the OVC's approach
> > (cases 2 and 3 above). Is such a distinction worthwhile?
> > Thanks.
> I find pointing out the distinction between VoteHere's
> "look-but-don't-touch-and-sign-the-NDA" and OVC's EVMPL to be
> quite important. You've done a good job of describing the
> licensing space above.

Hear, hear.

Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist
Encore Technologies (S) Pte. Ltd.
New voices in the global conversation
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:33 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT