Re: dual licensing try 2
D Richard Felker III <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:42:19 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.video.mplayer.g2.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:48:52AM +0100, Gabucino wrote: > D Richard Felker III wrote: > > A deal is good, as long as it involves them releasing their whole > > program under GPL or at least halting all production permenantly. > This is why I suggested mplayer-legal.. > > > > The ones wronged are all the people of the world who are unable to use their > > sources, whether or not they want to, because of proprietary restrictions.) > This is the RMS-ish viewpoint which is IMHO bullshit and every time I hear > it, I get an itch. Assuming an upper bound on program size, there are a finite number of programs. Every time someone makes and holds copyright on a new program, and doesn't make it free, a chunk of this pie is stolen from what others could potentially create in the future. One out of this gigantic finite number might seems insignificant, but once you consider that copyright covers anything similar/derived, and once you consider the sheer amount of proprietary software being produced, it IS significant. If you don't believe me, look at patents. Every useful idea (even trivial ones) gets scooped up and "owned" by someone, so no one else can use the same idea even if it comes to them freely. The only reason this is so blatently obvious with patents is that their scope is so much broader. Given time, exactly the same thing will happy with copyright. It's naive to underestimate the anti-creative power of copyright, and outright counterproductive to mock those who fight it. BTW, here's another argument against dual-licensing. Suppose you add a new feature to MPlayer, and this new feature is in the GPL-only part. Now your greedy licensee comes and says "hey, you didn't write that! it's part of our closed-source mplayer and someone ported it back to yours without our permission!" This is very hard to argue against, and the party with more money wins. Of course the greedy licensee can't make this argument when the only license is GPL, since they're required to license any derivative work they make under the GPL. Rich