Ken Brown writes: > You are making some very legitimate points. Last year, Bruce Perens, one of > the most active proponents of the GPL, said the exact same thing at an open > source conference, the GPL has limited commercial applications.
Bruce is wrong. In fact an inheritive license (e.g. GPL or OSL) is the premier commercial license, as part of a dual-licensing scheme. Look at the trouble Linksys has gotten into over the GPL. Nobody has managed to compile their sources into the same binaries Linksys is distributing. On the other hand, if a single company owned the copyright on the GPL distribution, it could license the software for distribution under a proprietary license. Actually, it's more likely that Larry Rosen's Open Software License would be preferred by a business since it's a contract. The GPL insists that it's not a contract even though it tries to bind you to things that only a contract can do. But the key to using the GPL to license software for profit is to own all the copyrights. Maybe this seems mercenary, and totally against the principles espoused by the Open Source Initiative? It needn't be. A proprietary license might require donations of code and include a release from the GPL. This is worth money to a company because it reduces their risk. Or if not an outright donation of code, then a transfer of technology, or patent licenses. The key is to NOT get locked into one business model. That's what the RIAA has done, and it's going to result in a massive shift of business away from the labels that make up the RIAA. If conditions change and your business model doesn't, you are hosed. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
