On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Stewart Stremler wrote:
In the ideal world, "proprietary" programs would be distributed as compilable source with no-redistribution clauses, and vendors would provide (free!) feedback/bug-tracking systems for their users. "Free" software would include public-domain software, as well as LGPL-style licensed software. Small-shop programmers could make a living writing and polishing code, instead of trying to make it as complex as possible so as to keep their "support contracts" going.
This would be close to what I'd consider ideal, too. Were I to develop software projects, I'd strongly consider, however, dual-licensing. The freely available, downloadable version I would likely and purposefully license as GPL. If you don't like the GPL, I'd likely offer a couple other licensing choices (you get the full sources with a non-redistribution restriction for one fee, full sources with redistribution rights for another fee, etc.)
I'd likely also be one of those people that most free software advocates would hate about as much as MS, because I'd probably keep the GPL release lagging a version or so behind the paid-license release. Excepting, of course, bug and security fixes, I see no reason, as an independent developer, to give away all my blood, sweat and tears to anyone that asks, simply because they ask. Something has to pay the mortgage, after all.
Gregory
-- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
