Re: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #140 - 9 msgs

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Greg Alexander wrote:

> You see, if the GPL becomes dominant, there becomes a demand for
> proprietary/commercial implementations of GPL code, just like there
> currently is a demand for GPL implementations of proprietary/commercial
> code.  The two markets complement each other nicely.

This only applies to libraries used to build other code upon, not end-user 
applications.  And even with this logic, you're expecting half of the 
combined efforts to be wasted on duplicating the other half.  Not exactly 
the best use of resources for society as a whole!

But tell me, what demand is there for a proprietary implementation of an 
end-user application that's available for free under the GPL?  Sure, it 
could make sense to compete, but it's likely that few would pay when they 
can get something free that's good enough...

> In fact, in the above scenario it would be the BSD/X11 license that is
> interfering with the _library developer's_ ability to make a profit off
> of their code.

If they want to make money off their library code, they shouldn't release 
it under the BSD/X11 license, that's clear.  They should take a hybrid 
approach like Sleepycat and offer the code under a strong copyleft (maybe 
GPL, maybe something more lenient like Sleepycat's open-source license), 
and offer proprietary licenses to proprietary interests for some price...

Deven