tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post4571963296153074177..comments2023-11-13T04:55:40.769-05:00Comments on Tuttle SVC: New IP Policy for Digital Media and Learning CompetitionTom Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-62799113466358086902007-08-28T12:29:00.000-04:002007-08-28T12:29:00.000-04:00Kevin,I think your analysis is right.Using a BSD l...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>I think your analysis is right.<BR/><BR/>Using a BSD license wouldn't necessarily rule out participation by a company making a proposal to expand an existing proprietary product. The BSD license would allow the new code to be integrated with the old. The problem is that you'd be giving the grantor a bunch of code that didn't do anything without the rest of your proprietary code.<BR/><BR/>It would be weird, but no weirder than the way they're doing it now (where you'd be required to release the same code under CC-by-nc-sa).Tom Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-70053032841071116792007-08-28T09:36:00.000-04:002007-08-28T09:36:00.000-04:00Your proposed solution would prevent folks like us...Your proposed solution would prevent folks like us (who already have something) from participating as it would amount to selling our product at a loss on the short side of the revenue curve. Perhaps that makes sense and we should stay on our side of the academic fence and use VC's. <BR/><BR/>The way I read it, they are trying to not preclude anyone from participating so they ended up saying something like "we have some ideas, but it's complicated, so come to us, make a pitch and we'll try to work it out." <BR/><BR/>From their policy:<BR/><BR/>". . .the Applicant should provide an explanation and rationale for why the project itself will serve charitable purposes and be consistent with the objectives of the Competition."<BR/><BR/>I guess this does address my previous argument - that they say they want for profits and entrepreneurs but their stipulations prevent that - but it certainly does, as you said, leave the policy a jumbled mess. <BR/><BR/>There are different structures appropriate for different stages and intents. They would be better off segmenting goals and project stages and offering different grant structures at each stage. Even three stages would clear them up substantially. Certainly a few stages and project types would be good candidates for your KISS structure.Kevin Prentisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11117174550347871502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-66072702819623718322007-08-28T04:21:00.000-04:002007-08-28T04:21:00.000-04:00The modified BSD is an OK suggestion as it is GPL ...The modified BSD is an OK suggestion as it is GPL compatible. But perhaps the GPL is more appropriate given the option on the CC license they proposed (i.e. "ShareAlike"). Sounds like copyleft might be desired in this case.<BR/><BR/>But no matter what, you are right that the non-commercial intent must go if they wish to make the software FOSS.Gnuospherehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242430566758242991noreply@blogger.com