I don't see any gotcha.
I would probably not need Vendor X's documentation and/or output
to reimplement the program.
You might if they were sufficiently clever. I can think of several
pieces of software where the vendor has managed to implement something
in a non-obvious way that has
VAB writes:
[...] I've been
wondering about dual licensing for some time now. The example that
brought it to my attention was the PHP licensing. PHP consists of
an interpreted programming languages (much like perl), and a run time
for that interpreter. When you download PHP from
Vendor X plans on releasing software as Open Source. X makes a number
of very interesting and useful research-derived programs, and also runs
an ISO-9000-certified software development shop. Their ISO certification
requires that they run only supported programs, and thus the development
shop is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vendor X plans on releasing software as Open Source. X makes a number
of very interesting and useful research-derived programs, and also runs
an ISO-9000-certified software development shop. Their ISO certification
requires that they run only supported programs, and
department. Thus, one of X's _main_goals_ in making the software Open
Source is that commercial vendors pick it up and _provide_support_ for it.
Thus, their license requires that if you distribute a derived work of their
program _and_ you provide support on reasonably comparable programs,
VAB wrote:
A fact rarely mentioned on the list is that release under a
license other than the GPL brings with it the danger that
the software product will be reimplemented under the GPL.
This is likely if Vendor X releases under a license which
is unattractive due to say, required support
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
department. Thus, one of X's _main_goals_ in making the software Open
Source is that commercial vendors pick it up and _provide_support_ for it.
Thus, their license requires that if you distribute a derived work of their
program _and_ you provide
It's true, though - not just a threat. If you don't go Open Source, someone
else will do it for you, and there are lots of examples. While I'd not explain
this to someone in terms of a threat, it is a _fact_ they must confront.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Dj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That
Dj writes:
VAB wrote:
A fact rarely mentioned on the list is that release under a
license other than the GPL brings with it the danger that
the software product will be reimplemented under the GPL.
This is likely if Vendor X releases under a license which
is unattractive due to say,
Dj writes:
DEVILSADVOCATE
[...]
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
Seth David Schoen wrote:
This can be put a little less harshly.
I did have my DEVILSADVOCATE tags on B)
The canonical comment that I think of on this subject is Jamie Zawinski's
phrase "magic pixie dust".
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
Just because something is released
In a perfect world I would get to work with all free software. I
don't want to work with code unless it's free. If I need code and
the only code out there is available under Vendor X's license and I
have the time and ability to reimplement that code and place it
under the GPL, I will do it.
Chris F Clark wrote:
In a perfect world I would get to work with all free software. I
don't want to work with code unless it's free. If I need code and
the only code out there is available under Vendor X's license and I
have the time and ability to reimplement that code and place it
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
