BSD bad for proprietary development too (was: Re: Vol 1 #154 - 10 msgs)

[email protected] wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:57:04 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "Sean C. Farley" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #140 - 9 msgs
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:03, Greg Alexander wrote:
> 
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > THEN DON'T USE GPL CODE IN YOUR SOFTWARE.
> > >
> > > If the competitive advantages of keeping your code secret outweigh the
> > > difference in cost of being able to leverage existing GPL code, then write
> > > your program from scratch and keep it proprietary!  If the competitive
> > > advantages DON'T outweigh the cost savings of leveraging existing GPL
> > > code, then don't whine that the GPL comes with strings attached, because
> > > your application wouldn't have gotten written anyway if the GPLed code
> > > hadn't been there!
> >
> > And, BTW, I can potentially make a boatload of money if I can sell you a
> > proprietary library that provides enough of the functionality of the GPL
> > code at a price that makes it worth your while to write that software,
> > since you're probably not the only one faced with this problem.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Those implementations will have to have all of the developers' copyright
> agreements to allow for sale of said code.  Only companies with
> exclusive copyright over the code base will be able to sell the code.

I think you may have misunderstood the scenario.  I was describing how
in a GPL-dominated world there is still work for most software
developers, but in a BSD-dominated world there is less work (although it
may be distributed in a way more beneficial to society, this is a
different issue).  In other words, the BSD-license is just as bad for
proprietary software developers as the GPL.

Scenario A:

A group of open source developers G produces a number of software
packages, including the software library libG.

Company X wants to produce a piece of software SoftX that uses the
library LibG.  Company X wants to make SoftX proprietary but they can't,
because that library is under the GPL.

This is a business opportunity for company Y, which happens to produce a
proprietary library LibY, which provides much of the functionality
available in LibG, but sells licenses for proprietary software.

Company X can now produce and sell their proprietary product SoftX, and
company Y sells a LibY license to X.

This a business opportunity for both company X and company Y, which sell
licenses, and they both can sell product licenses even in a GPL-dominant
world.


> > 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.
> 
> How?  The BSD/X11 license can be integrated with commercial as well as
> GPL code.


Scenario B:

Suppose that there exists another library LibB, which contains most of
the functionality of LibG and LibY, only under a BSD license.

With libB in existence, company Y will no longer be able to sell copies
of LibY, because LibB is effectively a dumping competitor.  Company X
will choose LibB over LibY, because the licenses offered for LibY will
be substantially more expensive than simply using the code offered for
free in LibB.

Company X can still sell SoftX (maybe even at a higher profit), but
company Y no longer sells any licenses, and thus there are fewer
software jobs overall.


I can even turn this into a hypothetical Wine-specific example, if that
would help.

GREG