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

"Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> 
> 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!

The difference between xGPL and BSDL is only significant for libraries,
because xGPL and BSDL are the same to end users (if we ignore for the
moment the GPL dynamic linking clauses, which end users are likely to
ignore anyways).

I do agree that some work will be duplicated, but that duplicated work
puts food on the table for a lot of software developers.  It may not be
the best use of resources for society as a whole, but it might be better
than you think.  Either way, the results for society as a whole is a
different discussion than the livelihoods of software programmers.

> 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...

What demand is there for a proprietary implementation of an end-user
application that's available for free under the BSDL?  Both licenses are
equivalent to the nondeveloper: "Here's my program, take and use it for
free, and don't sue me if it breaks something."

> > 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...

I was referring to the existence of a completely independent BSD/X11
library, (like the aforementioned GPL one).  I didn't mean that the
proprietary library developer would release their own work under the BSD
license.  Even the development of a completely independent BSD/X11
library that was substantially similar would significantly harm the
proprietary library developer's livelihood, whereas the development of a
GPL one would have fewer consequences.

GREG