"BusinessWeek columnist Stephen Wildstrom recently wrote a piece
called A Big Fly in the Open-Source Soup that concluded, 'The
future of commercial open source might be considerably brighter if
Linux and other programs went to a more commerce-friendly license
with fewer complexities and ambiguities than the GPL.' At the risk
of offending a great many NewsForge readers, I am going to say that
I don't disagree with him. Not because of the alleged complexity or
ambiguities of the GPL--it's a piece of cake compared to a typical
proprietary EULA--but because I don't understand what he means by
the term 'commercial open source.' If he had simply said 'open
source'--or used the more definitive phrase 'free software'--I
would reject his position outright.
"But even allowing for the escape clause provided by an
undefined, rogue-hybrid term like 'commercial open source,'
Wildstrom provides much to quibble about. His conclusion is based
upon a series of weak or simply erroneous facts and