From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 27 13:31:37 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: doc@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FBC16A400 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:31:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jpschewe@mtu.net) Received: from mtu.net (mtu.net [204.11.35.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDAB13C48D for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jpschewe@mtu.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mtu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35717F036F; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:13:40 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mtu.net Received: from mtu.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mtu.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYgD6tMdxnyw; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.42.109] (c-24-118-112-105.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [24.118.112.105]) by mtu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1755F036D; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:13:31 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Schewe To: Mike Miller In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4tGy9coObcSd3VtsVl0R" Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:13:31 -0600 Message-Id: <1172582011.26051.29.camel@jon.mn.mtu.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org, TCLUG List , Bruce Montague Subject: Re: [tclug-list] errors in "Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project" X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:31:37 -0000 --=-4tGy9coObcSd3VtsVl0R Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 09:13 -0600, Mike Miller wrote: > In the end, you basically suggest that the sole advantage of the BSD=20 > license over the GPL is that the BSD license attracts developers who want= =20 > to use a proprietary model of software development. In other words, the=20 > BSD license is best for those who would like to profit from our code=20 > without giving back any code to the developer community. What's good=20 > about that? That clearly is the core issue. Couldn't you have left off=20 > nearly everything else and just told the reader why he should want his=20 > code to be used in proprietary software projects that compete with open=20 > source projects? What about people that want to use your project and are willing to give back to the project patches to improve the project, but are unable to open source the software they are writing that uses your project? ________________________________________________________________________ Jon Schewe | http://mtu.net/~jpschewe Help Jen and I fight cancer by donating to the Leukemia & Lymphomia Society Here's our website: http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnJSchewe --=-4tGy9coObcSd3VtsVl0R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF5C57yWh1lXh/lFURAi6ZAJ9ccjJWLfnITXtt1PFf5ObsMptWRACeICW7 acx1JfdnJz4apLMO89sEClw= =D62I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4tGy9coObcSd3VtsVl0R--