On Tuesday 06 March 2001 16:39, John Tobler wrote:
> "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly / hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LAW2-F244U4DYo60bRp00004d93 / hotmail.com...
>
> > I think it is important to agree on licensing up front.
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > >There are a ways to resolve this issue.  The one I'm leaning towards
> > >is having the site's "Terms of Service" specify that any content
> > >submitted to the site is done under the terms of the GNU Public
> > >License (GPL).
> >
> > Good idea.  Bad choice of license.
> > [...snip...]
> > I also think that it would be good for RAA to set a
> > licensing policy early rather than late.
>
> Agreed.  I favor the least restrictive license.  Unfortunately, the GPL
> causes some serious difficulties for most potentially-commercial users.
>

While I agree in principle re least restrictive licnesing, I still question 
the automatic assumptiom that GPL is counter-commercial, Is code 
obfuscation/proprietization really necessary to commercial succes?
Or is that a short-sited, easy out for producers of intrinsically inferior 
product?

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn / mindspring.com