Fredrik,
very nice writeup. It actually shows where the current discussion has gone wrong. Finding out the *requirements* first, then comparing them with the current situation and only as a next to last step decide on a license (be it an already written license or a completely new one or a modification of an existing license). The last step would be the license change itself.
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:40:54AM +0100, Fredrik Ohrn wrote:
Another observation is that companies in group 1 are in direct competition with each other, so they want closed source. If TransGaming released their DirectX work BSD style, Lindows would quickly be there to appropriate it.
You miss one case here: Companies in group 1 that also want to make money with group 2s business model. They could do that easily and it would give them a distinct competitive advantage over the group 2 only type enterprises. Result: The group 2 only companies *can't* release their sources any more if they want to stay in business.
Ciao Jörg
-- Joerg Mayer jmayer@loplof.de I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.