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

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:35, Greg Alexander wrote:

> [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.

I did misunderstand what you were trying to say.

> 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.

Even with Apache and modssl, Stronghold still exists.

> > > 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.

This is not necessarily true.  Company Y may still have a better library
or at the least have better support than an open-source project.

In addition, Company Y could enhance libB and sell it, therefore,
negating any effects of dumping.  OTOH, if it was GPL'd, this dumping
effect would not be able to be negated.

> 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.

But more jobs than using the GPL in a similar situation.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]