|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author|
I found the Blotlet today useful (which probably just shows my ignorance).
In Bootstrap Alliance our current choice of open source licensing is the Apache-style license. However, we have a open mind in so far as twice a year, this choice comes up for review, true to our evolutionary mindset.
Here are your daily Bloglet subscriptions:
Thanks to Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner for his email about blogware and Open Source!
The GPL (short for GNU Public License) was the original Open Source licensing terms, and Captain Napalm was kind enough to translate the terms into English. I was unable to resist turning his translation into bullet points:
Say you're the product manager for Microsoft Word and you want to use code that's been GPL'd... there's no way you can stick it in Word without also releasing the Word source code. That's a sure way to get fired (and possibly whacked) by your boss, Bill Gates.
There's a more corporate-friendly open source license designed for that situation, called the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution). Captain Napalm to the rescue again:
In other words, our Microsoft Word product manager could easily stick BSD'd code into Word with no problem, as long as she also stuck a copyright notice in there. (Just to be clear, the GPL also requires a copyright notice).
What I've found especially interesting is that none of the Perl Publishing systems out there (GreyMatter, Movable Type, or Blosxom) are explicitly released under the GPL, the BSD, or any other three-letter open source licensing terms.
Captain Napalm took a crack at mapping the licenses of the various Blog Publishing tools to the GPL and the BSD:
At first, I couldn't believe that these Perl Publishing programs weren't open source! But I'm developing a theory as to why this might be... perhaps this will be my next article.
(8/20/2002 12:23:49 PM)