Re: [Fresco-devel] Re: Cross-platformability

>>>>> "M. Evans" == M Evans <[email protected]> writes:

    M. Evans> I'm not in a war.  What I am saying is that more
    M. Evans> manpower is available under looser licensing.  I'm

"Who wants to be somebody else's unpaid employee ?"

    M. Evans> trying to add numbers to your side :-).

Where did you get those numbers and would you be so kind to share them ?

    fdrfo> yes, lots of business people seem to be confused about any
    fdrfo> kind of license that doesn't use the term 'permission' the
    fdrfo> same way they are used to.  And yes, this confusion does
    fdrfo> seem to stem from general fear because (L)GPL does funky
    fdrfo> things with the market's own tools to 'defend freedom'.

    M. Evans> This armchair psychology discounts (a) the explicit
    M. Evans> anti-commercial intent of GPL and

How so ? If we were to acount for "the explicit anti-commercial intent
of GPL", what conclusions the "armchair psychology" well lead us to ?

The term "anti-commercial" is a bullshit.  It assumes there's no other
industry than the software industry.

    M. Evans> (b) the fact that
    M. Evans> businessmen know how to think rationally and understand
    M. Evans> contracts.  

False.  Some (most?) businessmen reaction to GPL is an example of
irrationality.  And lawyers understand contracts, not businessmen.

    M. Evans> It also discounts the fact that (c)
    M. Evans> businesses have made huge contributions to the open
    M. Evans> source world.

The rational among them.  And a huge code dropping^h^h^h^h is not a
huge contribution if nobody cares for that code.

    M. Evans> Businessmen are paid to manage risks.  It's not a
    M. Evans> question of confusion but of risk.  From a legal
    M. Evans> standpoint, the LGPL causes certain risks when used in
    M. Evans> commercial code.  There is the risk that modifications
    M. Evans> will be necessary; that "modifications" can be

You mix natural risks in normal business practice and the risk of
being caught for breaking the law.

    M. Evans> interpreted in many ways at court; that an LGPL project
    M. Evans> will be dropped by the open source world, leaving only
    M. Evans> the business to support it, but without code rights;

What do you mean without code rights ? You certainly have the same
rights with LGPL as with BSD.  (And taking away somebody else's rights
is not your right).

    M. Evans> the
    M. Evans> risk that the open-source project will not accept
    M. Evans> changes, thus requiring the business to configure its
    M. Evans> own source distribution; and on and on.

This is ridiculous. We are speaking of business, which DEVELOPS
software! What trouble can setting a source distribution be ?

    M. Evans> The wxWindows license is an example of how to
    M. Evans> short-circuit all these risks while not straying far
    M. Evans> from the LGPL.  The BSD license may be too loose, but
    M. Evans> nonetheless its success is quite remarkable and says to
    M. Evans> me that xGPL is not the necessity its advocates claim.
    M. Evans> In other words, open source can succeed quite handsomely
    M. Evans> under BSD, despite all the xGPL talk about business
    M. Evans> stealing code, etc.

Opinions without a single fact to support them.

    M. Evans> My overall point is that it's better for an open source
    M. Evans> project to attract commercial developers and obtain
    M. Evans> *some* of their improvements, than to drive most of them
    M. Evans> away with stringent demands and get *nothing* from them.

My overall point is that it's better for a free software project to
attract free software developers and obtain *some* of their
improvements, than to drive most of them away, faced with the
inevitable risk of having their work stolen by businesses, and get
*nothing* from them. Goto line 5.

~velco