[jdev] Re: JOSL 1.1?

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:48:57 -0700, Rachel Blackman wrote:

>>> If they are,
>>> it's potentially worth using a less restrictive license than the GPL,
>>> because it evidently helps spur commercial adoption and embracing of
>>> Jabber technologies.
>>
>> On the other hand we could use the BSD licence, the Mozilla licence or
>> something like that as well for this purpose.
> 
> Yep.  Nor am I even saying the GPL might not be appropriate for these
> things.  Just suggesting that the reason for the JOSL as opposed to saying
> 'we might as well put all JSF software under GPL' might be that the GPL
> can be restrictive, and sometimes you want to do things like seed the
> server market as part of the evil plan to take over the IM world,
> bwahahaha.... or whatever. :)

Indeed. ;-)

It seems there are two issues here:

1. Code ownership / stewardship

2. Code licensing / terms of use

I really meant to raise issue #1. Is there a legitimate role for the JSF
as a trusted third party for open-source code developed in the Jabber
community? It seems to me that the JSF could do this no matter what the
code license (terms of use) is.

A subsidiary issue is whether we might want to develop JOSL 1.1 as one
license that would enable the JSF to function as what Larry Lessig calls
an "intellectual property conservancy".

Peter