On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:25:47 -0800 (PST) Josh Coalson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Joshua Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to > > redistribute the > > > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for > > software under > > > this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give > > copies to > > > anyone. > > > > If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece > > of software > > they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away > > copies for > > free to their competitors? > > > > Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to > > keep their > > modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of > > letting > > a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it > > GPL). > > I guess I should clear up, I'm OK now with going BSD for the codec > libs.
That particular comment wasn't really targetted toward FLAC, it was just some amateur economic theory about why it might or might not make sense to charge money for freely-licensed software. > As for making money licensing, I never had any intention to > (and still don't). Nobody but M$/Dolby/Fraunhoffer/etc. can > get away with that. I've often wondered whether Rob Leslie has companies that license MAD from him, since MP3 is such a popular codec and MAD is such a good implementation. Why else would he license MAD under GPL instead of LGPL? I should ask him sometime. :-) Josh -- Josh Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Flac-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flac-dev
