--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Picking a license > To: python-list@python.org > Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:47 AM > On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence > D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > > In message > > <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > Patrick > > > > Maupin wrote: > > > On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > > > <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> > wrote: > > > > >> Under the GPL, everybody has exactly the same > freedoms. > > > > > That's absolutely not true. For a start, the > original author can dual- > > > license. > > > > That’s nothing to do with the GPL. > > If you mean "that's out of the control of the GPL" I > agree. But the > whole point of the discussion has been about how people > can't take GPL > licensed code proprietary, making enhancements, etc. and > I'm just > pointing out that this doesn't apply to the original > author. Someone > can decide they aren't making enough money under the GPL > and stop > distributing that way, and make all their enhancements > proprietary, if > they are the original author. >
That is one good reason for choosing to use the GPL, instead of a less restrictive license. You can license it, for a fee, to someone who wants to use it in some way that is not allowed under the GPL. If you use a less restrictive license that is not an option. Of course you still could put restrictions on future enhancements, but the the original code cannot have new restrictions put on it, only taken off. If I release code under the GPL today, I can change my mind and release the same code under the Boost license tomorrow. But if I release it with the Boost license, while technically I can release it with the GPL tomorrow, in practice everyone will use the previously released Boost licensed version. -EdK Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list