On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>
> I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as
> far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude
> vs end users.
>
> So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates
> basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that
> the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to use copyleft (I know,
> they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay for all the
> development and related activities).
>
Well, my opinion is that by having a non-copyleft version available,
it removes the incentive for commercial entities to create their
own versions, which will be obviously totally proprietary. Putting
it another way, if the only open source version is copyleft, then
you will not see commercial entities use it, simply because it
requires their own "secret sauce" bits to be forcibly donated.
So they won't use it at all and, instead, create their own from
scratch. And there is risk associated with that...
See
http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html
especially the 'Why Apache Software is Free' version.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
