On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:41, Roland wrote: > At 12:32 PM 2/15/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > >Exactly the opposite is true. When the (L)GPL is stamped > >onto code, every commercial programmer must reinvent > >the wheel rather than using it. Many of these programmers > >work for small businesses that are trying to compete > > Another good point from your side. > And here comes another question from my side: > The point in favor of the GPL as brought by Jeremy, is that the xGPL will > encourage contributions. I have to agree with Jeremie: with the BSD > license, companies will tend to keep things back. Look at Apples OS-X. It > is based on BSD, but they probably NEVER will make their code public. So > what benefit does the community have from it?
They have release Darwin as well as an NFS testing tool. FreeBSD did benefit a lot from that testing tool. > Jeremie pointed out, that he wants to give all code produced in his company > back to the WINE-tree. Now if WINE is GPL he will have an excellent > argument for his customers: sorry, we have to contribute all code back. I believe he already stated that he currently requires that their code be contributed back to WINE. > If WINE is not GPLd, his customers will probably want to keep the code > proprietary, in order to have a competitive advantage over others... > What can you say about that Brett? I still don't understand the problem for Jeremy from a commercial stand point. His company is paid to develop code. Under either the BSD or LGPL, he would have the same situation. Besides, as the owner of a company, he can always decide not to develop code for those potential customers who wish to keep the resulting code closed. > Maybe there is another kind of license that could adress both issues...but > I doubt it... Sean -------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
