Can the following license be used for ported programs?
david at vizion2000.net
Mon Sep 24 08:42:16 PDT 2007
On Monday 24 September 2007 07:54:25 Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> I never claimed to be original... if you want to see the
> innovator/largest code base in the community look at jahia.com... the
> only claim I made was I wanted to have my stuff included in the ports
> collection and wanted to know if the legal aspects of my business
> model where sufficient... one of the first replies answered that...
> all other discussion was on the philosophical merits of SIW and I
> should of put a disclaimer on that I was no longer speaking (purely)
> as the owner of FloSoft Systems but as the VP of the Miai
> Foundation... specifically any defense arguments I made for the
> business model was as a member of the SIW community and not as a owner
> of a company that practices it.
> On 9/24/07, David Southwell <david at vizion2000.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 September 2007 18:41:43 Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> > > On 9/24/07, Michael Dean <mdean at sourceview.com> wrote:
> > > > many people feel much differently, why not just a pure proprietary
> > > > license then, rather than proliferating Yet Another Silly License
> > > > which is not tempered by sound legal analysis.
> > >
> > > Not to be insulting but I don't think you read my 1st blog entry as I
> > > suggested (at least the first paragraph... specifically where I say
> > > both open and closed source are equally the wrong model). Now onto
> > > your actual points:
> > >
> > > The license has received legal review by an IP attorney.
> > >
> > > Again not to be insulting but I think most FOSS people slept through
> > > econ 101, especially the section on there is no such thing as a
> > > limitless resource. Even though you might consider this to be a
> > > conflict of interest; I have a family member who is a prof. of econ at
> > > UC Santa Cruz and has reviewed the economic aspects of both my
> > > specific work and the general concept of SIW (see second blog entry
> > > for definition). His general conclusion is while the model is untried
> > > on a large scale and there are some more minor things we can improve
> > > on (subject of debate within the SIW community) that we fix many of
> > > the economic flaws with both open and closed source models. He is
> > > currently in the process of writing a book on the matter and said he
> > > would have a full review after rewriting ch8 (which is on the economic
> > > issues raised by both models) in a few weeks.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > I have read both the blog and looked at the "product" references. Frankly
> > the intellectual and grammatical quality of the blog and the
> > comparatively trivial nature of the "products" referred to makes me feel
> > that the original contribution does not deserve the level of attention
> > that its author seems to crave.
> > Might it not be better to spend more time on creating truly original
> > softaware than drawing attention to oneself by purporting to reinvent the
> > wheel of software licensing?
> > David
> > David
Well I must say I am not impressed.. the business model, the license
concept and the arguments in it support appears half-baked nonsense. All
models that have tried to keep a foot in both camps have finished up with
both feet in the grave!!
Also it would inspire more confidence if you began to follow the model set by
generations of networkers on mail lists and elsewhere. Please do not mimic
newbies by top posting___ it is an extremely irritating foible.
best of luck
More information about the freebsd-ports