>> FOR THE LAST TIME, all I'm saying is that the GPL, *on its own*, has >> been found insufficient for protecting commercial interests.
Let me qualify/clarify this by adding the phrase "in a couple of very high profile cases" at the end. > Oh, I have no objection to your changing what you said to claim > something somewhat different. Feel free. Although I don't believe this is what I did, I appreciate your allowing me to clarify my position. That is, after all, the purpose of engaging in a dialogue. You're not being sarcastic here, are you? 'Coz sometimes it's hard to figure out when your sentiments are sincere and when you just want to bash someone. > However, you didn't demonstrate that, either. All you've shown is that > Trolltech and MySQL AB understand and use strategic licensing for a > couple of products. Your claimed and rather obviously overbroad > conclusion is a non-sequitur from that. I am genuinely puzzled by this assertion of yours. Why should it be a non-sequitur? Trolltech and MySQL AB did not even start out licensing their products under the GPL. They only adopted the latter because they believe it would gain them mindshare (and less to do, I believe, with any practical aspects of code sharing since they were already open source to begin with). The point is that they clearly do not believe that they would be be able to sustain a business model if they went with a pure GPL route - otherwise, they would not have retained their proprietary licensing schemes. _ 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]
