Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > It IS a 'cool trick'. The point is that the GNU license, used _alone_, > is inadequate to sustain a business model in many cases.
I'm not sure why one would necessarily expect a software licence to "sustain a business model" in the first place. For one thing, the majority of software written, overall, is never intended to be sold as a retail product: Most software is written as a necessary adjunct to and product _of_ business practices. However, to address your point more directly, what I was saying is that copyleft (typified by the GNU GPL) is _essential_ to some of the aforementioned "cool tricks". Those don't work without copyleft. Thus my objection to your rather polemical and vague assertion that GNU licensing is "not viable for commercial purposes". (Actually, what you said was "the GNU licence", perhaps forgetting that there are quite a few GNU licences.) > When used in conjunction with trademark protection and a 2nd > commercial license . When you say "commercial", here, do you mean proprietary? The term commercial means "subject to commerce": A CD full of open-source / free software sold at retail pricing is thus by definition commercial. > However, the extreme viral nature of the GPL.... Aren't you _tired_ of the polemics, yet, Andy? If GPL licensing is "viral", then, by the very same metric, proprietary source code such as Sun software under SCSL licensing or Microsoft Corporation source code under (thus far vapourous) "Shared Source" licensing must be effectively Ebola and Dengue Fever combined. Hell, you take even a few _looks_ at that source code under NDA and you'll have to worry about legal claims for the rest of your life, if you even consider working on anything arguably similar. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-03-007-21-OP-CY > ...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. Amusingly enough, MPL _is_ a classic copyleft. Thanks for contradicting yourself. > ...EXTREMISTS... dictatorial.... The name-calling is tiresome. But I guess it's easier to than dealing with real issues. > 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'. I guess you must live in some alternative universe, where Stallman did _not_ urge the Ogg Vorbis project to move the Vorbis code from GPL to BSD licensing. > Extremists are all about curtailing people's freedom to believe in > something other than what they preach.... Please point to one programmer whom Stallman has prevented from specifying his own choice of licensing. One example should suffice. Please don't spare the gory details: If RMS held a gun to someone's head, be sure to include all the juicy bits. > As a side note I am curious, what is RMS' stand on dual licensing? Why don't you look it up? Or is it more fun just hurling mud? > 3rd party Delphi *COMPONENTS*, not Delphi or Kylix itself. OK, regardless of what _you_ meant, then, what *I* was pointing out is Borland's deft wielding of the GPL as part of a proprietary-software marketing strategy. -- Cheers, There are only 10 types of people in this world -- Rick Moen those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 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]
