Re: bias...

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:20, Deven T. Corzine wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Sean C. Farley wrote:
>
> > It sounds like they have a business model similar to Aladdin's
> > Ghostscript except Aladdin waits a long period of time before
> > changing the license as opposed to a certain amount of revenue.
> > Actually, how does Aladdin when it is time to change the license on
> > the code?
>
> Basically, Aladdin relicenses the previous versions of Ghostscript
> under the GPL when a new major release is made available under the
> AFPL.  While the AFPL is "fre beer" to users, it disallows commercial
> use, so as long as companies want to use the code, they'll pay for the
> newest version, or suffer with the older GNU version.
>
> Actually, Aladdin probably wouldn't be relicensing as GNU at all, if
> it weren't for the fact that Stallman got Ghostscript's author to
> commit to placing ALL future versions under the GPL.  (I think the
> commitment was in writing.)

How old was the author when he signed the agreement?  I am curious if he
was in college or not at the time.

> Ultimately, the author realized there are a loophole in the timing of
> when each future version ended up under the GPL, and so he took
> advantage of that loophole to allow Aladdin to make a successful
> business model.  (And it's been successful enough that he doesn't have
> to work a "day job" for a living.)
>
> He didn't break his promise -- he HAS been making all future versions
> available under the GPL...  eventually.  Evidently the original
> commitment didn't specify that it would be immediately placed under
> the GPL.  If he had it to do over again, he said he wouldn't have made
> that commitment in the first place.  (Stallman tried to force him to
> turn over the copyright to the FSF, but he flatly refused.  Since the
> alternative was not to have a PostScript interpreter for GNU, Stallman
> ultimately backed down on that.)

I am intrigued.  Where did you find that information?

Sean
--------------
[email protected]