On 8/30/06, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<... some snipping ...>
> - Phil
The idea with the GPL is that if you want to also sell the program
commercially, you should additionally make it available under an
alternate license. Some companies have been successful in this mode.
(Trolltech comes to mind, and also, I believe, MySQL.) Descendants of
the GPL code are required to be GPL. >
No restrictions are placed as to what additional licenses you might
offer code for sale under that you have also offered as GPL, except for
"What can I get people to buy?". Commonly this is used to allow those
who don't wish to agree to the terms of the GPL to purchase the right to
use the code under other terms. Stipulating fees as a part of the
license is probably a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea? You said it was a bad idea, but you didn't say why.
Also, the assertion that "no restrictions are placed as to what
additional licenses you might offer code for sale under" is wrong; you
are expressly forbidden from adding additional restrictions. I can't
parse the sentence saying that this is "to allow those who don't wish
to agree to the terms of the GPL to purchase the right to use the code
under other terms" - it seems to be saying that it is legal to
distribute GPLed code in a non-GPL way, which it isn't.
It is a good idea, for these reasons:
1. The money would be paid to the people who wrote the software.
Under the GPL model you're promoting, the authors get nothing.
2. The GPL is unworkable. It requires that the commercial code also
be released under GPL, and that the source code to everything added is
released. It also requires the company to relinquish patent rights to
anything in the code. This is a complete non-starter.
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
