Recall that my view on this whole license debacle is from the view of an engineering organization that is looking for open source software to leverage. That said, I think I may not have been clear on a few points, I'll try to clear it up inline.
On 8/8/05 7:22 PM, "Kyle Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True, but without the open-source software, ACME gets to write it's own > IMAP server and spend even more money. The thing to remember here is > that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Using an established widget > as a base for the whizbang, ACME saves lots of development money. The > other way to do that is to buy the rights (or a license) to a commercial > established widget. This means more money! > > Open-source, rather than requiring monetary payment for the widget, has > use requirements. If you can't stand the use requirements, buy a widget. > THIS is capitalism. This is a good point. But understand as a developer (particularly one like Andreas) your software is less likely to be adopted by companies. At least that's what I'm arguing here. > >> Often times companies utilizing open source in key portions of their >> business will hire on the lead developer(s) of a project to help them build >> it. In some sense this is "giving back" in multiple forms. First it is >> giving the lead developer his dream: getting paid to work on the one thing >> he loves the most. Second, with the lead developer at the helm it is likely >> that many of the changes the company makes will end up back in the >> community. > > And you feel this is less likely to happen with GPL'd software than with > BSD'd software? What (evidence?) makes you think this is the trend? Didn't mean to imply that. I was stating this in favor of open source software in general and definitely not limiting it to any particular style of license. > >> It appears that I'm definitely in the minority here. I guess I have a >> bit more faith in big business than some of the other people around >> here do. Which is funny because I figure companies break the GPL all >> the time whereas you think they just use more "open" licenses :-) > > That's not capitalism, that's "theft". Just as much as getting a copy of > a commercial widget's source code without paying for it would be theft. I agree 100%. Whether or not someone believes in the GPL or not, the GPL is a license under which software is distributed. Breaking that license is not ok. > > I'm curious - what makes you think that a company that is willing to > commit a crime to get ahead financially is going to be more interested > in using (or contributing openly to) a BSD-style licensed widget than a > GPL'd widget? I didn't say that. Let me try a different angle. Assume a company that abides by license agreements. My feeling is that a company is more likely to incorporate software that uses a BSD-style license than the GPL because it is in -their- best interest to do so. Given that, I again feel that companies (more specifically, engineering departments) are inclined to give back -some- of their changes (particularly bug fixes). Whereas the GPL requires that they give back -all- of their changes, including those that may be trade secrets. Remember that my point in involving myself in this discussion is to show that companies are more likely to use open source software that does not require they give back -all- of their changes. Obviously I have no hard evidence to prove my point, however, my argument seems pretty convincing. I don't expect anyone here to say "oh wow, BSD license is better" (and I don't necessarily believe that myself) but I do have a hard time understanding how you could be missing my point. -Bob
