[Seaside] [Q] Could SproutCore be another solution for Seaside?

Sean Allen sean at monkeysnatchbanana.com
Wed Jun 25 19:27:53 UTC 2008

On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Allen <sean at monkeysnatchbanana.com> writes:
> Sean> On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>> Oddly enough, if all they wanted was credit, a BSD license with
>>> an advertising clause would have in fact done precisely that.
> Sean> I think the 'sell it as their own' might be a big part of that  
> equation.
> Well, if you're giving it away as open source, someone else selling
> it can't be part of the equation.  So the only part you might object
> to is "their own", which would be handled with an advertising clause.
> I often take open source as part of my commercial solutions.  I  
> respect any
> advertising clauses, but I'm certainly not going to be going out of  
> my way to
> not make money incorporating the work of others into my own work...  
> that's the
> whole *point* of open source: to not start over at ground zero for  
> each new
> task.  Go read the original RMS manifestos... that's the point he  
> was trying
> to make, although he decided to do it by ensuring that there was no  
> such thing
> as proprietary code.  I take a different tactic... that the core  
> technologies
> should be open, but each company can build their own company- 
> specific items on
> top of that.

I would read 'sell it as their own' to mean they can do what Next did  
with BSD.
Tuck it away in a fortified little world with just an attribution. I  
read that as,
if we are going to compete people using our code, we want all the  
improvements as well.
And for that, you need the GPL. With BSD I could take their library as  
a base, make some
bug fixes and not kick it back. That is what I read from the 'sell it  
as their own'.

Anyway, license talk is never fun.

More information about the seaside mailing list