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 have funds.

Is this the model corporations (or those with money) will use to undermine those communities?

Reply via email to