On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 13:14:04 UTC, rjframe wrote:
Except it doesn't. The GPL can be used to keep a competitor
from stepping up and using your work to create an alternative
product, allowing you to have a mixed open/closed model without
worrying about competition.
Many companies that have commercial and open source editions
use the GPL for the open source code; if you submit a patch you
also have to assign copyright (or maybe unrestricted right of
use) to that company. Any would- be competitor would always lag
behind the copyright-holding corp because they have to release
all features they develop if they distribute the application,
and the copyright holder is free to take any such work into
their own product.
I don't understand the legalities of various forms of licencing.
I do understand (to some extent) human motivation.
"Why would any particular person choose to contribute --
voluntarily -- to a public good that he or she can partake of
unchecked as a free-rider?"
And yet people do (contribute -- voluntarily). Why is that?
I think that these so called hybrid models undermine the aligned
interests of such people, and instead move people's incentive to
contibute, back towards monetary compensation.
There may well be some positive effect arising from these hybrid
models, but I am concerned about the negative effects of these
hybrid models, on such communities - particulary those they don't
Is this the model corporations (or those with money) will use to
undermine those communities?