Re: dual licensing try 2

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:26:49PM -0500, D Richard Felker III wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:14:05PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:18:01PM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
> > > It helps the developers avoiding potentially harmful and time+money 
> > > consuming lawsuits.
> > I understand your point. I thought you meant the developers of e.g.
> > KiSS.
> 
> I don't understand his point. IMO there will be at least as many or
> more legal disputes if we start licensing MPlayer for proprietary use,
> and it will be just as hard or harder to resolve them.

Well, Gabucino could argue that the licensing business brings in some
money, and that money can be used in legal battles. So it would save
money, but not time. (but I don't know how much A'rpi will ask for a
commercial license, and I also don't know what a worst-case lawsuit
costs) So his point, while it may have some merit, needs further
elaboration. 

However, I do think that most companies would pay for a license, just to
be free of the hassle of dealing with e-mails from customers who want
the source code and the wrath of the slashdot crowd. 

Those customers would be the real losers, in the case of proprietary
licensing KiSS et al could just say 'no, we don't have to give you the
source because we bought a license from The MPlayer Foundation'. The
MPlayer Foundation would, in that case, have publicly sacrificed the
right of that costumer (and all other customers) to look at the source
for some money/hardware/whatever.

I'd personally rather have KiSS lying about their copyright infringement
then them saying 'we have permission because we payed The MPlayer
Foundation money to be legally able to DENY you the freedoms you would
have had if they hadn't sold out (maniacal laughter)'.

Greetings,

Rik.

-- 
Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.