Re: Licensing
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Licensing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200503210921.46012.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Licensing (Mitch Pirtle <mitch.pirtle@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Licensing
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Mitch, > My angle is just the opposite, what if I want to release code under an > open source license, but allow commercial entities the freedom to > provide add-ons under whatever license they choose? I actually talk to companies about licensing proprietary code as OSS frequently (though I refer them to Larry Rosen, John Koenig and Gwyn Murray as well, since IANAL). Which license you use is really dependant on what you expect to get out of open-sourcing your code. (1) You have an application or software plug-in that you want to make the de-facto standard in some niche, so you need it to have the widest possible distribution. Or, you're open-sourcing it mainly to make your competitor's offerings unprofitable. You do not expect to make any money off the code itself but off of complimentary offerings. (2) You have a (potentially) profitable proprietary application which is important to your business. You want to take advantage of OSS to surpass traditional distribution channels, but still want to make money off of it. You are a small challenger in a competitive market with other, bigger players. (3) You have an unprofitable proprietary application and you want to increase your visibility and PR and goodwill in the OSS/hacker community by open-sourcing it. For case (1), you want to use a BSD-like license; BSD, Apache or Artistic. The commercializability of your code will encourage the whole industry, including your competitors, to adopt it. For case (2), you want the GPL or a similar "viral" license. If you released the code under a BSD-like license, your big competitors might snap it up and use it to put you out of business. For (3), you could use *any* license; it really doesn't matter because you never expect to use the code again. Ideally, you want to use something like the MPL or Apache which keeps your name with the code, but other considerations, like complimenting licenses with other software, who's going to host the project, or how you feel about the FSF, are more important. Within that, you want to use the most liberal license possible in order to attract outside developers; a dead abandonware project is nobody's PR bonus. Feel free to call me; phone avail at www.agliodbs.com. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: