On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org>wrote:
> > proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain > meet. > A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and > does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and > proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But > neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven. > Let's say there are two companies F and P. F makes Free software and releases it to the world with code. F is happy, and so are users. Then, P comes along and tells F that it has some nice add-on tools for the Free software and wants F to relicense it to P under a different license and gives F some money. F is happy since he earns and gets a chance to support this endeavour further. P has a client-base which is happy to pay for the additional features - sans source for the *add-on* tools. Why can't we be friendly with F? F *owns* the software, and it's entirely F's prerogative to sell it under another license too. And if you are so unhappy, take the Open version and fork. But I don't see that having any meaning, as the source-code is already GPL'ed. Unless it's the GPL which is a source of concern to you. What am I missing in your arguments? Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
