Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:04 -0600, Nathan Kurz wrote:

> 
> Joe: I realize this discussion isn't specific to Webmin, but I think
> it is a very important one.  If future developers are afraid to
> license code under the GPL because of fear that it can then never be
> used under anything but the GPL, I fear it will harm the future of
> open source software.  And if I'm wrong, well, it would be worth a
> considerable sum to me to find that out now.  But if you really want
> this discussion to go away, request again and I'll disappear.
----
here's the deal - when you ask for a legal opinion, you control the
answer by how the issue/question is framed. These things are litigated
because not everything is as clear cut as it sometimes seems.

If you want opinion about applicability of a licensing scheme is proper,
you either A) hire an attorney with at least some reasonable expertise
in IP or B) ask legal staff at FSF C) debate it ad infinitum on a mail
list where it is certain never to be settled. 

At least if you want to debate it on this list - where is the
'licence' ? - it's not included with the development version that I just
downloaded and that leads me to believe that there is no license
accompanying the code as distributed - except for the LICENCE file that
accompanies webmin which is clearly not a GPL license and clearly not a
ransomware license. What is the license being discussed? The very vague
description on Joe's web site?

But since this is Joe and Jamie's baby, they are entitled to make the
call of the license and have the responsibility for its suitableness and
I don't see them asking for our opinion, in fact, I read just the
opposite.

Lastly, offering a wager on your opinion as a challenge against someone
else's opinion to be judged by yet another opinion is rather silly,
isn't it?

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.