Re: dual licensing

Having handled the Kiss Technology case, I absolutely agree with the
dual-licensing. Its point is what Richard and the other guy didn't notice:
we lose nothing with it. We have all the advantages of the GPL (we can
sue anybody who fucking steals it), _BUT_ if the "offender" firm plays nice
they will pay big bucks to us for using our code.

On the other hand - if we don't have dual-licensing -, the just steal it period
and we'll have to go to the court to get the compensation (and justice) we
deserve.

For us, for firms, dual-licensing is a _possibility_ and not a _restriction_.
Either we use it, or we don't. I suggest we do, and advertise it. So firms
can purchase their sorry ass - but save headaches for both sides.

(FYI: libmad is dual-licensed, and I already know about a firm which has a
dual-license contract on it. _And_, that very same firm has stolen a big GPL
code because it wasn't available on a second license, and then a large war
erupted nearly stopping the project's development.. My (and Arpi's) point is:

 - firms DO steal -> court -> lotsa time+money consumed -> success doubtful
 - firms use the second license -> money receipt or whatever

About developer agreement about the second license: Fabrice already sells
ffmpeg since years (with no advertised duallicensing), and I don't remember
ever asking anybody for his agreement.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team

_______________________________________________
MPlayer-G2-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-g2-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAOIE7Aq6GhkS0XDcRAqoaAKCnYPPQCNlUcK2cv1Rl37WZsrdD+wCeJomK
1iB2JixrRazWkTfvkyJ0Om0=
=IOHN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----