Philip Goetz wrote:
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.
It's a bad idea because licenses are relatively permanent, and prices
fluctuate. This is especially true if foreign currencies become
involved, but it's true over time anyway.
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
If you own the copyright to some material, you can sell it to different
people under different licenses. (Note that this requires that you own
the copyrights. Not just some of them, but all of them. This is one
reason this approach is infrequent.)
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.
You can't distribute the GPL'd copy under non-GPL terms, but if you also
bought a different license (say from TrollTech), that license might well
permit you to, e.g., distribute binary only copies of a modified
original. This would not be under the GPL at all. The GPL prohibits
this, so you need to purchase a separate license. Actually, Trolltech
requires that you do your development FROM SCRATCH under the non GPL
license.
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.
The GPL does not prohibit you from selling software. It merely
prohibits you from prohibiting others from selling copies of their copy
at any price they choose.
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.
The GPL is currently successful. Few companies are successful with
their main product under the GPL license...though MySQL comes to mind,
and I believe that SleepyCat is even successful distributing source code
under the BSD license. Examining actual cases proves your assertions
incorrect.
...
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
