Hi Kevin!
"Kevin A. Burton" wrote:
> If you subscribe to the BSD philosophy that in order to have a strong software
> development model you need to be loose with your licensing so more people can
> easily embrace your code. Dual licensing allows the GPL camp to accept our code
> into their fold and treat it like a first class citizen. No more wars. They
> get to keep their GPL philosophy, we get to keep our BSD philosophy. Just flip
> the coin and it is a win-win situation :).
I like the idea, and I deeply respect your point of view (philosophy). I'm talking
about
practical aspects.
Suppose Apache Software Foundation has a codebase, Foo 1.0. It's dual-licensed: BSD or
GPL, whatever you choose. Now the FSF likes it, so they choose GPL and develop Foo 1.1
under GPL. (They would never work with dual-licensed code.) No mention at all in the
credits.
Apache would like to use the code, but they can't: it's GPL'ed. So, in effect, the ASF
has lost control on the derivatives -- and due credits as well.
On the other hand, suppose some evil company takes it and releases an independent and
improved Foo 1.2 under BSD license. Now, they don't have to release the source code --
the ASF lost control over the derivatives of its work again. All it gets is a measle
mention in page 2342 of the electronic manual -- fame, huh?
That's what I call a lose-lose situation, and it's not fun and snow games :) The only
reasonable solution is keep dual license all along, but that doesn't work if it's to be
distributed with GPL'ed code. And it depends on the good will of the participants.
We're not even to the point of enforcing the license. Imagine what a big company can do
in a trial if they're sued, with this kind of license.
Un saludo,
Alex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
