For the vendor it's really a choice of "go Open Source or lose _everything_".
If you GPL your product, you can probably still make money from it using
commercial licenses. If someone else clones your product, it's GPL-ed
anyway, plus you have a new competitor who wouldn't have been there
otherwise.
Thanks
Bruce
> From: Dj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, I'm Vendor Q. I have a working product and I make money from it.
> "Hey, GPL your product" says a section of the community
> (not necessarily my customers). "Why?" ask I. "Well, if you don't do it
> then we'll do it for you" comes the response. "So why should I make it
> easier for you?"... "But we won't duplicate it by looking at your code,
> but by external reverse engineering". "So you don't need my code"?
> "Er, no, but it'd be nice if you went GPL". "Why?"...
>
> Substitute GPL with "Open Source" and you're still spinning in this
> problem zone, one which will keep Q from considering opening up.
>
> What's the purpose of "Open Source"? (The GPL purpose is transparently
> obvious) To bring software within "firing range" of the GPL/Clone route?
> (It's a lot easier to clone something if you have access to a full copy of
> what you are cloning)... Or to provide tangible benefits to software
> developers either alone or as a working group within an organisation?
