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

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:22, Greg Alexander wrote:

> This may be a duplicate.  If so, I apologize.
>
> Deven, I'm CC-ing you because you and Sean ask basically the same
> question, and I would like to use some of this message as reference
> material in the answer.
>
> "Sean C. Farley" wrote:
> >
> > 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:
> > > > >
> > > 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 this case, the company is making money on its value-adds, not on
> the library itself.

The statement said that company Y "will no longer be able to sell copies
of LibY".  That statement includes enhanced versions of LibY.

If it was under the GPL, only the originating company could sell copies
of LibY.  At least under the BSDL, other companies could compete.

> > 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.
>
> If the library is GPLed, no dumping actually occurs in the market for
> "libraries that can be used in proprietary software."

I see.

> That was the point of the original message.  If company Y extends libB
> and sells it, they are making money on their value-adds, not on the
> library itself.  In effect, they are changing their business model to
> act as company X in the original transaction.  They are becoming a
> consumer of the original library instead of a producer.
>
> In either the GPL or the BSD world there are opportunities for
> proprietary consumers of a library, it's just that in the GPL world
> the library must be purchased from another proprietary software
> producer, resulting in more software jobs overall.  This applies
> whether the consumers are end-user application developers or if they
> are developing a proprietary library which utilizes the library which
> they are consumers of.

I disagree.  I see a limitation on jobs in the GPL world.  With the BSD
license, there can be more companies and more jobs overall than with the
GPL.  With the GPL, only one company can sell a proprietary version: the
company that owns the copyright.


> > > 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.
>
> How do you come up with that?  If I start out with jobs in company X
> and company Y then remove the jobs in company Y, how am I left with
> more jobs?

Why are you removing Company Y?  As they have the main developers, most
companies will probably be buying from them.  In addition, you will
probably have a few other companies also supporting the library with or
without their own add-ons.  I see more jobs coming from this.

I see it the same as domain names.  Most people still buy from Network
Solutions for $35.  We would only be able to choose from them in a GPL
world.  That would mean a few more jobs under Network Solutions, but it
would not be near the number of jobs (and not just under the software
category) currently available from all of the registrars.  There are
many companies selling domain names.

Also, Network Solutions can still charge a higher price even though they
have no add-ons to speak.

Sean

P.S.  Gandi (http://www.gandi.net/) has a good price (~$11) on domain
names.
--------------
[email protected]