I have Fortune 1000 clients myself, and frankly speaking in real world they don't even care what type of license the free stuff has. Why? Simple. Because 90% of the time these companies buy commercial support and being a commercial customer it's very easy for them to get a commercial version of the software for a reasonable price. But the latter not happening very often - most of the time they never publish their in-house software since it's their competitive advantage - and thus no reason to be concerned about license type. As to "legal uncertainties" - frankly I don't know, my lawyer liked it, knowing how complex the law can be I am sure any type of license free or non-free can potentially bring legal issues - it's imperfect world. Steve Underwood wrote:
paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3 any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and has stood the test of time. However a number of large companies have banned their employees from working on anything involving GPL 3 code, because of legal uncertainties, especially with regard to patents.
Steve
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org