Re: dual licensing try 2

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:53:38PM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
> > 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 - personally - don't believe in that stuff.
> 
> Why would anyone want to recompile his DVD player's MPlayerG2, when he can
> have it for free on his computer? :o
The customer would want to see the source, because the vendor obviously
has something to hide (misfeatures/DRM/spyware). If they have nothing to
hide, why would they not contribute back their changes? 

> > 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)'.
> Now, that's exaggerated.
I'm trying to make a point here... maybe the maniacal laughter was
exaggerated, but I find 'sold out' appropriate. 'sold out' is meant in
the sense of 'betraying a cause for personal advancement' (It could be
that you/A'rpi find the cause for free software not _that_ important,
then it is for you no big deal to 'betray' it. If that is the case then
this is where we disagree.)

Greetings,

Rik.

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