John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> The competitors you created in step one can create competing GPL >> versions with the same features. > > David Kastrup writes: >> That's a nice theory. In practice, you can't hope to keep pace with the >> original authors in almost any case unless development died altogether or >> they left. > > We are talking about the main line going closed-source. That provides > both motive and opportunity. Consider X.
What about X should I consider? X was a consortium product. The most active developers clamped down on the distribution conditions, and other previously active developers reengaged themselves on a different version. Far cry from a single-vendor situation. Or what are you talking about? >> Many projects don't survive the original authors leaving (or even >> just aging) even without forking or competition. > > If no one cares then it doesn't matter, does it? Last time I looked, "care" and "can" were two different words. > If Open Office went closed-source many people would care, and many of > them would be in a position to do something about it. Again, consider > X. OpenOffice is by and large not a consortium product, but Starsoft->Sun. Quite few developers without that affiliation. In contrast, X is not really bound to any particular shop. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
