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

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Greg Alexander wrote:

> 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).

It's equally significant for applications.  End users might not care about 
the difference (they're happy to use something free), but it matters to 
companies looking to profit from proprietary code -- the BSDL code allows 
them to extend the code and sell an improved version to those who will pay 
for those improvements.  The GPL makes this impossible.

> 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.

If we're going to concern ourselves with what's best for society as a 
whole, we can probably all agree that copyright reform is probably it...
(Current copyright terms are WAY too long.)

> 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."

If they're equivalent, no demand.  If the proprietary one is better, there 
would be some demand, for the people interested enough in the improvements.  
Since they could start with the BSDL code to make it better, they can be 
sure it's at least as good -- then they just have to improve it somehow.

> 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.

Yeah, that could undercut the proprietary developer, but they could always 
shift gears, adopt the BSD/X11 library, and extend that, instead of working 
on their old proprietary version of the library...

Deven