(You wouldn't be the same Chris Gray who wrote the Draco compiler, would
you?)

In part, the choice of license depends upon what the company is trying to
accomplish by going with an open source license.  My thoughts on the
matter run something like this:

If the company is only opening the source to the version of a procut one
step behind the current release, then something like the GPL (or perhaps
even more restrictive) makes sense: Presumably, in this case, the purpose
is to pick up a little press, allow cicrulation of ``demo'' versions, and
maybe pick up a bit of contributed code.  The GPL, or something similar,
compels people doing work on the code to give up the sources to their
changes.  While this is a bit yucky, it may be the best thing, if these
are the goals that the company has in mind.

If the intent is to kick off a bit of code that the company doesn't want
to continue supporting (at least not without receiving lots of consulting
fees), and at the same time pick up a little bit of press, then I'm not
sure that the license matters all that much to the company.

If the company is embracing the spirit of open source as a guiding
principle, however, then I would make at least the following points:
Either license will permit and encourage independant development.  
However, the GPL doesn't seem to mix well with other licenses.  While
there wouldn't be much to keep a GNU/LINUX group, say, from adopting and
working on a Berkely-licensedpiece of software, the GPL would be a major
problem with brining the same code into a BSD camp.  Additionally, on the
grounds of ethics, the GPL tries to dictate the rights that later authors
have over their own work on derivatives; the Berkeley license leaves each
person free to judge for themselves.


Well, those are my first thoughts on the subject.  Admittedly, they don't
go too deep, but you didn't say how stuck you were for ideas.  (^&

Good luck.


  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --rauch@eecs.ukans.edu