Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Roland <[email protected]> wrote:
 
> Well, no one is forced to use GPLed code. If he does he must give back...I
> think it is more like a trade.

Not always true.  See previous post on LGPL -> LGPL calling.  Besides, if there
are no other alternatives, you might very well be forced, or be forced not
to play.
 
> > The GPL has accomplished its purpose: destroying opportunities for programmers.
> What about Microsoft C++, it's still up and running, so the GPL didn't
> destroy that did it?

That is a poor example.  No other compiler company has $35 B in the bank.
 
> But wouldn't the same effect take place if GCC was under a BSD license? Of
> course a company could take that code, improve it and try to sell it. But
> lets be honest, who would buy it?

If it improves code speed by > 20%, I think enough people would be interested.

> I think very few people would, unless the improvements where in a very 
> dramatic level which I doubt is possible for a small company.

Don't know.  But I don't think it's up to ME to decide.  That's the benefits
of capitalism - let those who think they can, try.

> And even so I think most people would be still happy using
> the GCC for free.

This is true.

> And if a company improved it dramatically, soon the open source GCC would
> catch up, even if no code is released back from that company.

Don't know about that.  SPARC64 *still* doesn't work reliably in the GCC.
GCC hasn't been very quick on being current.
 
> Look at Apache web-servers. They are free but not GPL, but does this make a
> difference? Apache is ruling the market and which company stands a chance?

actually, it DOES make a difference.  SUN directly works on apache - it
has contributed parts of jakarta and xerces.  Not sure if this would have
happened if apache was GPLed.
 
> Maybe at the it is not the license that destroys businesses, but the
> availability of free software at all, regardless of license.
> 
> As Roger Fujii wrote:
> 
> >Yes, but the GPL causes problems in the economic sense too, since
> >non-leveragable, zero cost items, drives out most of the competitors.
> >In the physical markets, this is called "dumping".
> >
> 
> And the same applies for BSD licensed free software.

yes, but BSD doesn't make the problem worse - it allows the avenue of building
on top the the OS software - BSD *is* leveragable.   As an example, let's say
that you can make insulation for free.  In the BSD world, this might be bad
for Owen-Corning, but would be good for other industries that use insulation.
In the GPL world, there would be a condition (let's say that you have to charge
cost for any product derived from it).  What this does is depress prices - not
really good for anyone except MAYBE consumers in the short term (long term, the
consumer would have less choices, so it would be bad).

-r