Re: What is the best license to use for open source software?

["G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 04.01.15 23:13, David Botton wrote:
> Clarity doesn't come from making "believe" a GPL run-time designed to prevent commercial use is not shareware.

Clarity would be good, indeed. Implied universal quantifiers
about licensing variables are the source of many misunderstandings
here, I think. Granted, these are a requisite of software politics.

"Shareware" and its diverse associations in one's mind
seems an unrelated issue to me, and, moreover, the notion
has the potential of creating confusion whilst there could
be a chance to point out, once again after many years, the
problem of Ada 2005 pricing in general.

As an example of commercial GPL software, our company depends
on some GPLed source commercially in products
that we sell to a customer; however, the contract between
the customer and us requires that we always deliver
the sources, anyway.  This commercial GPL situation may be
particular, but it exists.

It is politics to confuse "commercial" and "GPL" in general
propositions. This confusion doesn't help with deciding whether
or not FSF GCC is a viable option if one need to learn about
the implications of the linking exception.

It is clear from the GPL that *if* the commercial use of
the GPLed software should evolve into a *closed* *source*
distribution of derivative works, *then* the latter use is
illegal. The GPL virus prevents these illicit dealings in
software, in this particular case. The mataphor invoking
"virus" becomes increasingly inadequate, paradoxical actually,
but I understand the political intent.

But is it so hard to admit a preference for a business model that
eventually is, yes, *closed* *source*? I.e., no matter how free
the compiler is or how open source the libraries are, the final
products should be copy protected! The GPL's copyleft openly
prevents some kinds of copy protection. The linking exception
removes that in many cases.

Clarity? I'd find the licensing issues and business issues
much more clearly expressed if arguments would stop
using the big words and the free floating comparatives.

For example, are these facts?

- AdaCore support pricing, which entails the GPL linking
exception, is incompatible with most small businesses.

- If all Ada 2005 pricing is incompatible with small
business, then small business and Ada 2005 are incompatible.


Now imagine RR Software's compiler being updated and
targeting the LLVM.

What would your preferences be, then, WRT licensing and pricing?