Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the > > > GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that > > > effort. > > > > If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under > > the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module, you have > > to duplicate that effort. > > Correct.
Since you apparently want to reduce duplication of effort, why is this case not a problem? > > If people don't like the business consequences of releasing under > > GPL, why would they release source at all? > > I don't know how else to say this: > > *) "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." > *) Reciprocity amongst businesses. > *) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good. > *) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses. When I started open source licensing work, it seemed logical that the only reasonable license for a proprietary software vendor is BSD and its friends. But once you realize that the GPL's nature is not a threat to _you_, it becomes much more attractive. In fact it helps getting people in your project, because those people know that no one can take their contributions and make them proprietary. Does it surprise you that 8 big CE companies (including the one I work for) have chosen Linux rather than FreeBSD as the basis for future devices? The GPL was an important factor in favor of Linux here. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
