| Blog | # of Comments |
|---|---|
| The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) | 2 Comments |
| Engadget | 4 Comments |
| Download Squad | 4 Comments |

Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It seems like you're mixing up "Commercial-friendly" with "Proprietary"
Proprietary means that it's generally a secret and not open to the public review.
"Commercial-friendly" means that more companies are willing to touch it. Many companies are fine with using permissive licensing, but won't touch anything that's GPL'd.
MIT/BSD are about as liberal as they get, (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), I have read most of the open source approved licenses more than once, and I think they pretty much spell out that you can use the code for whatever purposes you wish. The only more liberal licensing is "Public Domain" - I think a move away from the GPL (because *I think* most lawyers are unwilling/unable to draw the line of where one set of GPL code stops and code written with a different license starts).