open source non commercial license

For the past 4 years i have been working on a number of
innovative
internet technologies.  As part of this process i have
produced a
large cross platform library of C++ code.

Whilst the core technology is too senstive, i would like to
be able to
open source some or all of the library code.  Part of my
motivation is
that i think there is a significant gap in currently
available C++
libraries.

Libraries like STL, and Boost do little to address the
majority of
tasks that a software developer performs.  They are either
too
narrowly focused, or too abstract and esoteric.  There is no
cross
platform library for C++ which has the ease of use and
productivity of
the libraries found in other environments like Java, .NET or
Python.

The library which i have written supports strings, times and
dates,
threading, networking, xml, xpath, html, css, javascript,
regular
expression, collections, machine learning, encryption,
encoding, sql,
logging, filesystems, compression and many other features in
an
extremely easy to use object heirarchy.

It is clearly written and easy to understand, and having
been written
by a single person ,it is consistent and follows a strict
principle of
least surprise.

As such i think it has both significant educational and
commercial
value.  I would like to be able to provide it free to the
open source
and academic communities, but i do not wish for people to be
able to
gain commercially from my work.

As a software developer who has previously worked both as a
contactor
and a consultant in industry sectors like investment banking
and
retail it concerns me that large companies can readily use,
and
indirectly or directly make staggering amounts of money from
such use,
open source software without paying a cent for the work
which has gone
into its development or contributing a single line of code
back to the
community.

In most open source software the confounding factor is the
attribution
of work.  When you have hundreds and potentially thousands
of
individuals who have contributed to a project, it makes
little sense
to seek financial reward from the commercial uses becuase
the
distribution of such rewards would be impossible.

Hence most open source software simply rests on the
"share and share
alike" principles which atleast encourage users not to
exploit the
work without giving something back.  Of course, the only
truly "open"
open source license are those which do not ask for anything
back, but
thats another discussion.

Becuase i am the only developer of the software, attribution
is not an
issue, and likewise i am more sensitive to the exploitation
for
commercial gain.

I would like for there to be a way that i could share my
work with the
open source community, the academic community, and indeed
any
individuals who wished to use it for non commerical gain. 
But where
by i was compensated for when it was used in any kindof
commercial
setting, not just as part of a commercial software product.

I would like a licensing scheme which scales fairly, so that
in a
commercial context the cost of the license was equal to the
size of
the company.  Small companies pay less, big companies pay
more.

How can an open source license meet these seemingly
conflicting needs,
and how can i structure things so that the project can still
grow and
have external contributors once it is out there in the
community.

One way might be to set up a structure where by a certain
percentage
of licensing fees was donated to an existing open source
foundation or
one which represents the library itself. But such a scheme
would be
tricky to manage, how do you work out how much goes to the
community
and how much to the original developer.  It rapidly becomes
an issue
of attribution again.

I have been thinking about this for many years, and
sometimes i think
the only way to achieve my goal is to just give it away and
not worry
about the commercial use.

But there must be an alternative...

Any ideas ?

Emerson
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Hello Emerson,

You shouldn't be looking into CC licenses for software,
especially
libraries that are to be used on many different situations
and by many
different entities.

A 2 clause BSD license would be almost perfect, except it
allows
companies to go rampant and use the work without attribution
or open
sourcing the changes they did to the library.  The LGPL on
the other
hand, is pretty much what you are looking for.

Check http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/LGPL for more details.

Furthermore, if you want another suggestion, look into D,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28programming_language%
29 a very fine
replacement for the aging C++, which uses much of its
sintax.  Since
it's relatively new, it's lacking good libraries and APIs,
as of now.

Regards,
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves

On 2/5/07, Emerson Clarke <emerson.clarkegmail.com> wrote:
> For the past 4 years i have been working on a number of
innovative
> internet technologies.  As part of this process i have
produced a
> large cross platform library of C++ code.
>
> Whilst the core technology is too senstive, i would
like to be able to
> open source some or all of the library code.  Part of
my motivation is
> that i think there is a significant gap in currently
available C++
> libraries.
>
> Libraries like STL, and Boost do little to address the
majority of
> tasks that a software developer performs.  They are
either too
> narrowly focused, or too abstract and esoteric.  There
is no cross
> platform library for C++ which has the ease of use and
productivity of
> the libraries found in other environments like Java,
.NET or Python.
>
> The library which i have written supports strings,
times and dates,
> threading, networking, xml, xpath, html, css,
javascript, regular
> expression, collections, machine learning, encryption,
encoding, sql,
> logging, filesystems, compression and many other
features in an
> extremely easy to use object heirarchy.
>
> It is clearly written and easy to understand, and
having been written
> by a single person ,it is consistent and follows a
strict principle of
> least surprise.
>
> As such i think it has both significant educational and
commercial
> value.  I would like to be able to provide it free to
the open source
> and academic communities, but i do not wish for people
to be able to
> gain commercially from my work.
>
> As a software developer who has previously worked both
as a contactor
> and a consultant in industry sectors like investment
banking and
> retail it concerns me that large companies can readily
use, and
> indirectly or directly make staggering amounts of money
from such use,
> open source software without paying a cent for the work
which has gone
> into its development or contributing a single line of
code back to the
> community.
>
> In most open source software the confounding factor is
the attribution
> of work.  When you have hundreds and potentially
thousands of
> individuals who have contributed to a project, it makes
little sense
> to seek financial reward from the commercial uses
becuase the
> distribution of such rewards would be impossible.
>
> Hence most open source software simply rests on the
"share and share
> alike" principles which atleast encourage users
not to exploit the
> work without giving something back.  Of course, the
only truly "open"
> open source license are those which do not ask for
anything back, but
> thats another discussion.
>
> Becuase i am the only developer of the software,
attribution is not an
> issue, and likewise i am more sensitive to the
exploitation for
> commercial gain.
>
> I would like for there to be a way that i could share
my work with the
> open source community, the academic community, and
indeed any
> individuals who wished to use it for non commerical
gain.  But where
> by i was compensated for when it was used in any kindof
commercial
> setting, not just as part of a commercial software
product.
>
> I would like a licensing scheme which scales fairly, so
that in a
> commercial context the cost of the license was equal to
the size of
> the company.  Small companies pay less, big companies
pay more.
>
> How can an open source license meet these seemingly
conflicting needs,
> and how can i structure things so that the project can
still grow and
> have external contributors once it is out there in the
community.
>
> One way might be to set up a structure where by a
certain percentage
> of licensing fees was donated to an existing open
source foundation or
> one which represents the library itself. But such a
scheme would be
> tricky to manage, how do you work out how much goes to
the community
> and how much to the original developer.  It rapidly
becomes an issue
> of attribution again.
>
> I have been thinking about this for many years, and
sometimes i think
> the only way to achieve my goal is to just give it away
and not worry
> about the commercial use.
>
> But there must be an alternative...
>
> Any ideas ?
>
> Emerson
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Ivo,

Thanks,  but I think the LGPL is the wrong direction for me,
it
clearly allows commercial use through linking.  The point
that i was
trying to make is that i do not want to allow any commercial
use
whatsoever without licensing.

Companies like Apple through their use of open source
libraries like
KDE indirectly make a lot of money.  Thats becuase they can
claim that
they are not using or selling the open source library as
part of their
main product, rather they using it to develop a feature
which they
give away for free.

Its a loop hole which im not happy with, i want my software
to only be
free for non commercial uses. And by that i mean that any
company
making money of the software either directly or indirectly
(aka
linking) should pay a license.

I have read a lot about D, it sounds exciting and i would
very much
like to port some or all of the library to that language. 
But first i
need to get it out there, and i cant do that until i sort
out the
licensing.

The reason i posted the question to the creative commons is
that i
think this issue actually represents a largely unfilled gap
in open
source licensing.   There is no license currently that i
know of which
creates a business model for open source software...

Perhaps there should be one ?

Emerson

On 2/5/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <justivogmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Emerson,
>
> You shouldn't be looking into CC licenses for software,
especially
> libraries that are to be used on many different
situations and by many
> different entities.
>
> A 2 clause BSD license would be almost perfect, except
it allows
> companies to go rampant and use the work without
attribution or open
> sourcing the changes they did to the library.  The LGPL
on the other
> hand, is pretty much what you are looking for.
>
> Check http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/LGPL for more details.
>
> Furthermore, if you want another suggestion, look into
D,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28programming_language%
29 a very fine
> replacement for the aging C++, which uses much of its
sintax.  Since
> it's relatively new, it's lacking good libraries and
APIs, as of now.
>
> Regards,
> Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
>
> On 2/5/07, Emerson Clarke <emerson.clarkegmail.com> wrote:
> > For the past 4 years i have been working on a
number of innovative
> > internet technologies.  As part of this process i
have produced a
> > large cross platform library of C++ code.
> >
> > Whilst the core technology is too senstive, i
would like to be able to
> > open source some or all of the library code.  Part
of my motivation is
> > that i think there is a significant gap in
currently available C++
> > libraries.
> >
> > Libraries like STL, and Boost do little to address
the majority of
> > tasks that a software developer performs.  They
are either too
> > narrowly focused, or too abstract and esoteric. 
There is no cross
> > platform library for C++ which has the ease of use
and productivity of
> > the libraries found in other environments like
Java, .NET or Python.
> >
> > The library which i have written supports strings,
times and dates,
> > threading, networking, xml, xpath, html, css,
javascript, regular
> > expression, collections, machine learning,
encryption, encoding, sql,
> > logging, filesystems, compression and many other
features in an
> > extremely easy to use object heirarchy.
> >
> > It is clearly written and easy to understand, and
having been written
> > by a single person ,it is consistent and follows a
strict principle of
> > least surprise.
> >
> > As such i think it has both significant
educational and commercial
> > value.  I would like to be able to provide it free
to the open source
> > and academic communities, but i do not wish for
people to be able to
> > gain commercially from my work.
> >
> > As a software developer who has previously worked
both as a contactor
> > and a consultant in industry sectors like
investment banking and
> > retail it concerns me that large companies can
readily use, and
> > indirectly or directly make staggering amounts of
money from such use,
> > open source software without paying a cent for the
work which has gone
> > into its development or contributing a single line
of code back to the
> > community.
> >
> > In most open source software the confounding
factor is the attribution
> > of work.  When you have hundreds and potentially
thousands of
> > individuals who have contributed to a project, it
makes little sense
> > to seek financial reward from the commercial uses
becuase the
> > distribution of such rewards would be impossible.
> >
> > Hence most open source software simply rests on
the "share and share
> > alike" principles which atleast encourage
users not to exploit the
> > work without giving something back.  Of course,
the only truly "open"
> > open source license are those which do not ask for
anything back, but
> > thats another discussion.
> >
> > Becuase i am the only developer of the software,
attribution is not an
> > issue, and likewise i am more sensitive to the
exploitation for
> > commercial gain.
> >
> > I would like for there to be a way that i could
share my work with the
> > open source community, the academic community, and
indeed any
> > individuals who wished to use it for non
commerical gain.  But where
> > by i was compensated for when it was used in any
kindof commercial
> > setting, not just as part of a commercial software
product.
> >
> > I would like a licensing scheme which scales
fairly, so that in a
> > commercial context the cost of the license was
equal to the size of
> > the company.  Small companies pay less, big
companies pay more.
> >
> > How can an open source license meet these
seemingly conflicting needs,
> > and how can i structure things so that the project
can still grow and
> > have external contributors once it is out there in
the community.
> >
> > One way might be to set up a structure where by a
certain percentage
> > of licensing fees was donated to an existing open
source foundation or
> > one which represents the library itself. But such
a scheme would be
> > tricky to manage, how do you work out how much
goes to the community
> > and how much to the original developer.  It
rapidly becomes an issue
> > of attribution again.
> >
> > I have been thinking about this for many years,
and sometimes i think
> > the only way to achieve my goal is to just give it
away and not worry
> > about the commercial use.
> >
> > But there must be an alternative...
> >
> > Any ideas ?
> >
> > Emerson
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Feb 5, 2007, at 17:52, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> As such i think it has both significant educational and
commercial
> value.  I would like to be able to provide it free to
the open source
> and academic communities, but i do not wish for people
to be able to
> gain commercially from my work.

You can't--by definition. If the license doesn't allow
commercial  
use, it isn't an Open Source license. If your license does
not allow  
commercial use, you are not sharing with the Open Source
community.

It is very unfortunate that CC has licenses that don't allow
 
commercial use under the same brand as its licenses that
follow Free  
Software and Open Source principles. Moreover, it is very
unfortunate  
that content licensed under these "non-commercial"
licenses is  
paraded as "Open Content" or "Open
Music" and the association with  
Open Source risks diluting the meaning of Open Source.
(Likewise,  
parading such content as "Free Culture" risks
diluting the meaning of  
Free Software.)

I suggest focusing on how you can make money instead of
focusing on  
preventing others from gaining commercially.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivoneniki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Feb 5, 2007, at 18:28, Emerson Clarke wrote:

> There is no license currently that i know of which
> creates a business model for open source software...

Eh? There are companies that make a profit from Open Source
software.  
There must be business models there, even though they aren't
direct  
license sales.

See for example http://www.openlife.cc/
for information about  
business models around Open Source.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivoneniki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2007, at 17:52, Emerson Clarke wrote:
>> As such i think it has both significant educational
and commercial
>> value.  I would like to be able to provide it free
to the open source
>> and academic communities, but i do not wish for
people to be able to
>> gain commercially from my work.
> 
> You can't--by definition. If the license doesn't allow
commercial  
> use, it isn't an Open Source license. If your license
does not allow  
> commercial use, you are not sharing with the Open
Source community.

Emerson didn't say that he wanted it to be "Open
Source."  He just 
wanted to "provide it for free."  You have a point
that the 
non-commercial restriction will not make his software as
useful for many 
academic and FOSS users as it would be under a genuinely
Open Source of 
Free license.  But he can still share his work and offer
permission for 
some uses to others.

> It is very unfortunate that CC has licenses that don't
allow  
> commercial use under the same brand as its licenses
that follow Free  
> Software and Open Source principles. Moreover, it is
very unfortunate  
> that content licensed under these
"non-commercial" licenses is  
> paraded as "Open Content" or "Open
Music" and the association with  
> Open Source risks diluting the meaning of Open Source.
(Likewise,  
> parading such content as "Free Culture" risks
diluting the meaning of  
> Free Software.)

CC offers standardized licenses for a range of permissions. 
The brands 
that matter for free and open software are brands created by

organizations devoted to copyleft principles.  CC doesn't
claim that all 
of its licenses meet those principles.  CC doesn't use
"Free Culture" to 
describe itself or its licenses.

> I suggest focusing on how you can make money instead of
focusing on  
> preventing others from gaining commercially.

Hear hear!

James
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Quoting Emerson Clarke <emerson.clarkegmail.com>:

> Thanks,  but I think the LGPL is the wrong direction
for me, it
> clearly allows commercial use through linking.  The
point that i was
> trying to make is that i do not want to allow any
commercial use
> whatsoever without licensing.

You can dual license: sell people a license to link
proprietary 
projects to your
libraries without having to share the code, or let them use
the 
libraries under
the GPL or LGPL.

> Companies like Apple through their use of open source
libraries like
> KDE indirectly make a lot of money.

They also provide source back to KDE, admittedly not without
problems in the
past.

> Thats becuase they can claim that
> they are not using or selling the open source library
as part of their
> main product, rather they using it to develop a feature
which they
> give away for free.

Giving something away for free isn't the issue with that
particular example.
Whether the code is proprietary or not, and the scope of the
license, are the
issues. Apple have used LGPL-licensed code from KDE to make
Safari and have
followed the license to the letter.

> Its a loop hole which im not happy with, i want my
software to only be
> free for non commercial uses.

Define non-commercial. It's harder than people think. 

> And by that i mean that any company
> making money of the software either directly or
indirectly (aka
> linking) should pay a license.

But surely if there are no successful business models for
open source software
you don't need to worry about anyone using your open source
software to make
money? 

> The reason i posted the question to the creative
commons is that i
> think this issue actually represents a largely unfilled
gap in open
> source licensing.   There is no license currently that
i know of which
> creates a business model for open source software...

Many GPL-based companies would disagree.

> Perhaps there should be one ?

If you search the older and darker corners of the web you
will find the
occasional project page for noncommerical or academic-only
licensed projects.
They have lost out decisively to licenses that protect users
freedom.

Language libraries are a largely commodified resource. In my
opinion you would
do better by gaining wide adoption of your libraries and
keeping stewardship
and expertise of them, using them as a loss leader or
advertiser for your
services and a resource for projects, rather than trying to
monetise them
directly.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

> CC offers standardized licenses for a range of
permissions.  The brands
> that matter for free and open software are brands
created by
> organizations devoted to copyleft principles.  CC
doesn't claim that all
> of its licenses meet those principles.  CC doesn't use
"Free Culture" to
> describe itself or its licenses.
>
> > I suggest focusing on how you can make money
instead of focusing on
> > preventing others from gaining commercially.
>
> Hear hear!

Thats just semantics, one way of making money is licensing
the
software to commercial users.  I dont see anything wrong
with this...

I dont want to prevent commercial use, i just want to force
that a
licensing fee is paid in such circumstances.  Commercial
organisations
should not have an issue with this, especially if the
license is very
reasonable.

I don't think that in principle this makes the software any
less free
than the GPL.  As i said earlier, the only reason the GPL
doesnt claim
license fees is becuase traditionally the attribution of
such fees
would be difficult.  In all other areas the GPL strives to
create an
ecosystem where free software developers and commercial
software
developers are separated.

I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open source
licenses, where
if something is free, it should be truly free.  Except that
i want
people who make money from it to give me some of that money,
as is
only fair.

Emerson
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:21 +0000, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> > CC offers standardized licenses for a range of
permissions.  The brands
> > that matter for free and open software are brands
created by
> > organizations devoted to copyleft principles.  CC
doesn't claim that all
> > of its licenses meet those principles.  CC doesn't
use "Free Culture" to
> > describe itself or its licenses.
> >
> > > I suggest focusing on how you can make money
instead of focusing on
> > > preventing others from gaining commercially.
> >
> > Hear hear!
> 
> Thats just semantics, one way of making money is
licensing the
> software to commercial users.  I dont see anything
wrong with this...

There are two camps on this subject: those in the free
software
community who believe it is morally and ethically wrong to
use
mechanisms like licensing fees to discourage users from
freely sharing
and participating in the development of software as a
community.  And
those in the open source community who do not say that it is
wrong to
license proprietary software, but wrong to confuse that with
open
source.  I am aware that this is a Creative Commons mailing
list, not an
Open Source mailing list, so I'm aware that the question may
validly
wander into territories beyond those claimed by these two
camps.

> I dont want to prevent commercial use, i just want to
force that a
> licensing fee is paid in such circumstances. 
Commercial organisations
> should not have an issue with this, especially if the
license is very
> reasonable.

Again, commercial organizations pay all kinds of licensing
fees all the
time--sometimes happily, sometimes not, sometimes willingly,
sometimes
not, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.  The
reasonableness of your
license charging royalties is not, per se, either a
guarantee nor a
prohibition of commercial use.  But it makes your approach
fundamentally
outside the boundaries of both the free software and the
open source
communities.  Any success you see coming from those
communities will
not, therefore, automatically translate to your fee-based
licensing
regime.

> I don't think that in principle this makes the software
any less free
> than the GPL.  As i said earlier, the only reason the
GPL doesnt claim
> license fees is becuase traditionally the attribution
of such fees
> would be difficult.  In all other areas the GPL strives
to create an
> ecosystem where free software developers and commercial
software
> developers are separated.

This reflects your misunderstanding of the history, purpose,
effect, and
expectations of the GPL.  As a person who started a business
in 1989
based exclusively on GPL-licensed software, I can state
based on
personal experience that the success of that company was in
no way based
upon the forced separation of free and commercial software
developers.

> I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open source
licenses, where
> if something is free, it should be truly free.  Except
that i want
> people who make money from it to give me some of that
money, as is
> only fair.

There are many who share your preference for BSD-style
licenses, but the
second statement is only true in your mind.  You are welcome
to attempt
to prove that others believe the same by measuring your
commercial
success against the commercial success of true open source
companies.
Your belief that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with
commerce is
factually incorrect, as my own experience, and the
experience of
numerous other open source companies demonstrates.  You
should not use
counter-factual information as the basis of an argument.

M


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

> > I don't think that in principle this makes the
software any less free
> > than the GPL.  As i said earlier, the only reason
the GPL doesnt claim
> > license fees is becuase traditionally the
attribution of such fees
> > would be difficult.  In all other areas the GPL
strives to create an
> > ecosystem where free software developers and
commercial software
> > developers are separated.
>
> This reflects your misunderstanding of the history,
purpose, effect, and
> expectations of the GPL.  As a person who started a
business in 1989
> based exclusively on GPL-licensed software, I can state
based on
> personal experience that the success of that company
was in no way based
> upon the forced separation of free and commercial
software developers.

I was only quoting from some sources i read recently, see
ht
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing

The GPL clearly sets out to create distinct sets software in
the
world, as opposed to BSD style licenses which simply give
things away
for free.  To me, personally, the GPL seems a little
confused.  It
seems like it was designed by people who wanted to give
their software
away for free, but couldnt quite stomach seeing other people
benefit
from it directly.  Hence the non commercial use clause. But
the
problem is the non commercial use clause doesnt cover most
of the
commercial uses.

I dont believe the GPL necessarily creates any more of a
community or
encourages any more contribution than BSD style licenses do.
  Atleast
not because of the non commercial clauses.  I dont think
non
commercial clauses do anything to contribute to open source.
 At the
end of the day it is individual developers who contribute
time to free
software, not companies.  And in my own experience BSD style
licensed
projects tend to be more pervasive.  Projects like zlib,
openssl, and
sqlite have been very succesful becuase of their
availability to
commercial users.

I dont want to suffer the same indecisive fate, so i see
myself either
finding a suitable solution to the commercial dilemma, or
simply going
with a BSD style license.

What i am talking about is wether or not an individual can
make money
by producing software, giving it away for free, but also
licensing it
for commercial use.

> > I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open
source licenses, where
> > if something is free, it should be truly free. 
Except that i want
> > people who make money from it to give me some of
that money, as is
> > only fair.
>
> There are many who share your preference for BSD-style
licenses, but the
> second statement is only true in your mind.  You are
welcome to attempt
> to prove that others believe the same by measuring your
commercial
> success against the commercial success of true open
source companies.
> Your belief that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible
with commerce is
> factually incorrect, as my own experience, and the
experience of
> numerous other open source companies demonstrates.  You
should not use
> counter-factual information as the basis of an
argument.

I have not said that the GPL is funfamentally incompatible
with
commerce, but i do believe that 90% of commerce is not
covered by the
GPL.  Theres a difference.
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses