> > It's interesting to note how companies like Trolltech and MySQL find
> > that the GNU license as-is is clearly not viable for commercial
> > purposes and have resorted to dual licensing their offerings.
> 
> How odd.  I'd phrase it precisely the other way around:  Multiple
> licensing is a very cool trick, and many business/commercial effects
> that can be achieved with it are not possible _without_ copyleft
> licensing.  Ironically enough, you yourself have supplied an example.
> Please see, below.

It IS a 'cool trick'. The point is that the GNU 
license, used _alone_, is inadequate to sustain a 
business model in many cases. When used in 
conjunction with trademark protection and a
2nd commercial license it does seem to be 
effective in protecting business interests
and at the same time preserving the ideals of
open source - everyone gets to have their cake 
and eat it too.

However, the extreme viral nature of the GPL is 
still a turn-off or too much of a risk to many 
companies who would rather work with an MPL- or 
BSD- style license. There is room for both styles
and EXTREMISTS (like Stallman) who insist that
people have to necessarily gravitate towards
one over the other justifiably risk being percieved 
and labeled as dictatorial. The existence of people 
whose views are like Stallman's in that they do 
not acknowledge the usefulness or practicality of 
open source licenses with terms differing from the GPL 
(extremists) prove that my earlier statements are not
about a 'straw man'. Extremists are all about curtailing
people's freedom to believe in something other than 
what they preach - they are oppressive, unhealthy 
for society at large, and are a danger to everyone 
including themselves.

I acknowledge RMS' massive contributions to the
software community but his going a bit (just a
bit) overboard in his advocacy is actually taking 
away from all the good that he has accomplished. 
He should lighten up a little.

As a side note I am curious, what is RMS' stand
on dual licensing?
 
> > Look at the Delphi components scene for which many purveyors have been
> > supplying source code for their components without any regard for the
> > GPL or what RMS seems to consider gospel truths.
> 
> Correction:  Please have a look at the terms of usage for Borland Kylix
> Community Edition.

3rd party Delphi *COMPONENTS*, not Delphi or Kylix 
itself.







_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to