Am 12.04.2011 13:02, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: > "Daniel Gibson" <metalcae...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:io1als$jsc$1...@digitalmars.com... >> Am 12.04.2011 12:24, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: >>> "Russel Winder" <rus...@russel.org.uk> wrote in message >>> news:mailman.3416.1302591172.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>>> >>>> Personally I find licences such as BSD, MIT, ASL, etc. ones to avoid >>>> since they allow organizations to take software, sell it for profit and >>>> return absolutely nothing to the development community. >>> >>> I've never seen that as a realistic concern. Here's the basic scenario: >>> >>> 1. I make program Foo and release it under BSD/MIT/etc. >>> >>> 2. The company EvilSoftwareCo takes Foo and sells it giving me nothing. >>> >>> That's what's seen as the problem, right? I'm not concerned because the >>> obvious next steps are: >>> >>> 3. I go around spreading the fact that EvilSoftwareCo's Foo is available >>> for >>> free (both meanings of the term) from my site. >>> >> >> What difference does it make? You don't have the money to reach >> EvilSoftwareCo's (potential) costumers. Ranting in your blogs and some >> mailinglists or whatever won't change anything. >> They do big marketing to sell your software (with their small >> additions), they claim its stable and certified etcpp. >> So they still make big money with your code without giving anything >> (neither code nor money) back. >> > > Sending out a press release is dirt-cheap. If EvilSoftwareCo is actually > making significant money, then it's very likely that some news outlets would > jump at a story like "Big company charging people for a free program." > > Or even better yet: EvilSoftwareCo would have done the hard work of proving > that there's a viable commercial market for Foo. Since I already have the > same product, I either de-OSS the next version of Foo or cave and make it > GPL, go get the world's easiest VC or business loan (again, EvilSoftwareCo > did the hard work of proving the viable market), use those funds to > advertise/market about being "The real creator of Foo", undercut > EvilSoftwareCo, and then laugh all the way to the bank as EvilSoftwareCo > goes under. >
What's left on that market when EvilSoftwareCo is already in it? "I wanna sell a Office Suite, Microsoft makes millions with it so it's a viable market" > >>> 4. There isn't a fucking thing EvilSoftwareCo can do about it. >>> >>> "But what if EvilSoftwareCo makes proprietary changes to Foo and sells it >>> as >>> FooPlus? Your Foo doesn't get any of those extras!" >>> >>> Don't care. If they put in the time and effort to add value to something, >>> then they *should* be allowed to ask for compensation for their work >>> under >>> whatever business model they choose. And if the value they've added is >>> merely trivial, then A. My version of Foo can still compete and B. I can >>> just add it to my Foo myself (or anyone else can). >>> >> >> The problem is not only that they get money for your code (+their >> extras), it's also that suddenly there's an incompatible version of your >> program. >> Maybe it's incompatible with your file formats etc. If their FooPlus is >> successful your Foo may become obsolete. > > That would still be equally possible even if FooPlus were a completely open > project. > But than you could at least integrate their changes into your version to support their file format etc