> > > Ok, how about :
> > >
> > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> > > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
> > > (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
> > > change it.
>
> I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than
> flame-bait. BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um... how's this
> :
>
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed source" (proprietary)
> restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.
I know this is a pain but I think it is worth getting this down so we
have something concrete to point to when people ask. Actually, it is
going much quicker and smoother than I thought.
How about this? I have removed "questionable": (This is getting shorter
each time.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
