On 9/4/06, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philip Goetz wrote:
> It is a good idea, for these reasons:
>
> 1. The money would be paid to the people who wrote the software.
> Under the GPL model you're promoting, the authors get nothing.
The GPL does not prohibit you from selling software. It merely
prohibits you from prohibiting others from selling copies of their copy
at any price they choose.
I already addressed this, and you are responding again with the same
statement that I was resonding to.
My point is that I want a license that requires anyone distributing
the open-source software to pay the AUTHORS of the open-source
software.
The GPL makes no provision for this.
> 2. The GPL is unworkable. It requires that the commercial code also
> be released under GPL, and that the source code to everything added is
> released. It also requires the company to relinquish patent rights to
> anything in the code. This is a complete non-starter.
The GPL is currently successful. Few companies are successful with
their main product under the GPL license...though MySQL comes to mind,
and I believe that SleepyCat is even successful distributing source code
under the BSD license. Examining actual cases proves your assertions
incorrect.
Those companies don't make money off the software. They sell products
and services. The GPL is not successful at enabling people to make
money directly off software. This is critical, because it takes a
large company and a large capital investment to make money selling
products and services. This business model is useless to people like
us, who need a way to hack out some code and make money off the code.
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
