Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[mgushee@havenrock.com]

On 23 Feb 2003 at 7:30, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remai 
wrote:

> GPL eliminates commercial usage.

Well, you'd better let Red Hat Software know about that. They have 
this bizarre notion that you can build a whole business around GPL'ed 
software. Fools.

Or did you mean to say something a little different?

> The best choices would be either the Academic Free
> License or the Mozilla Public License.  The Academic
> Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted
> by OSI lawyers.  The MPL came about through extensive
> user discussions over a long period of time

I wonder what sort of users you're referring to? Personally, I find 
the MPL a monstrosity of legal jargon. Anyway, if you're going to 
assert that certain licenses are "best," your readers would 
appreciate it if you explained how you think those licenses benefit 
software authors and/or the community. The fact that a certain
license was carefully designed (a claim that, I think, could be made 
for most open source licenses) doesn't by itself make the license 
good in general, or appropriate for any given project.

> See also the "Fallacy of GNU" -
> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/13420.html

Hmph. Takes a potentially interesting point and butchers it. The
author's thesis is essentially: the GPL depends on copyright;
copyrighted materials are subject to fair use; since the GPL hasn't
been tested in court, fair use may undermine its supposed
protections without our knowing it. Could be. But he spends 90% of 
the article illustrating general points that may or may not be 
relevant.

--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, CO USA
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners