Re: licensing

I have been quiet, I have heard the BSD pros and I have heard the GPL 
pros from others.

I have no problem with Microsoft being used as an example of proprietary 
licensing. I have no problem with Microsoft being an example of a 
company which uses BSD licensed code under a proprietary license. My 
opinion on the BSD license is not important. My opinion on the GPL 
License is not important.

But to answer the question of whether a government should license code 
it develops under a BSD license or a GPL, I must ask some questions so 
that the person who originally asked - as well as all who have discussed 
the point - can come to their own intelligent conclusion(s). This 
question must be thought of in a competitive economic sense, at an 
international level:

Why should a government, funded by it's tax-payers, pay for source code 
to be produced that can be placed in a proprietary product and sold back 
to the same government, as well as the citizens?

My answer - and this is *my* answer - is that this source code has been 
paid for, and paying for it twice is not intelligent. If you believe 
that your government, funded with your dollars, should produce code that 
can be placed in an application which competes - or worse, an 
application copyrighted by a company from a foreign country that is all 
too happy that you have allowed them to use it in a proprietary product 
- is myopic in an economic sense, astute in a colonialist sense, and 
damaging to the commons being built by the citizens through the proxy of 
a government.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. But if you paid for the development, 
do you really want to see ads on TV from a foreign company selling an 
application that you helped write to the people who funded part of it's 
development? If yes, use the BSD license.

If not, use the GPL.

Your choice.

I don't pick sides, I pick sensible options. I ask that you do as well.

Sincerely,

Taran Rampersad