John Tobler <jtobler / WirelessKnowledge.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly / hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:LAW2-F244U4DYo60bRp00004d93 / hotmail.com...
[...]
> > 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.

Clarification.  I do not want to be misinterpreted as
having said that the GPL causes problems for commercial
companies that want to use software, and I also did not
say that you cannot have successful businesses based on
revenue from GPLed software.

I wouldn't agree with either statement.

What I meant is that many programmers who would be
interested in Ruby, and interested in a Cookbook of
useful programming recipes, will be working for
companies on projects that it would be inconvenient (at
least from the programmer's point of view) to GPL.
Therefore the GPL is a poor fit for a collection of
snippets that people will need to use.

In general your software license should be a match for
what you are trying to accomplish.  The GPL offers
protection against people who don't mind sharing code,
but don't want to feel that it was "stolen" from them
by someone else.  A Cookbook is something that you
*want* people to steal.

But a larger application could be a totally different
kettle of fish.  If the GPL is a fit for both your
problem and personality, go for it!

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com