Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?

On 2005-08-08, at 0229, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> Specifically, what behavior does the GPL prohibit that you (or  
>> anyone else) feels should not be prohibited?
>
> Adding a mailbox format, adding a depot format, adding in-house  
> extensions, authentication modules, and so on.

the GPL doesn't prohibit any of this. it prohibits writing these  
things and trying to DISTRIBUTE the changes, without those changes  
being licensed under the GPL as well.

> As long as it's GPL (and once GPL, always GPL), any intern who can  
> get a hold of the software can  distribute it.

no.

what the GPL says is that if a company wants to take a piece of GPL  
code, modify it, and NOT distribute it, that's fine- the modified  
code can be kept within the company and used for internal purposes.  
however, if they DISTRIBUTE the code- which means in any format,  
source, binary, embedded into a chip, whatever- then their  
modifications must be offered under the GPL as well.

if an intern (or contractor) is working on a project for that  
company, then he is considered "part of the company", and is able to  
use the modified code for projects within the company, but he is not  
allowed to use it for anything outside the company, and he is not  
allowed to keep a copy of the modified code for himself, unless the  
company agrees to release the changes under the GPL (because both of  
these activities constitute distribution, unless the company has told  
him not to, in which case it becomes theft.)

i know, i've been that contractor, and one of my clients was that  
company. i added some custom features to a GPL program for them, and  
they elected to keep my changes in-house rather than allow them to be  
distributed- which means that i don't even have a backup copy of the  
modified code.

if the company takes GPL code, changes it, and chooses not to release  
it, that's fine- the GPL allows that. but if they distribute the  
modified code at all, those modifications must be distributed under  
the same GPL license under which they obtained the original code.

> And that's food for lawyers of course, but it's scary enough to  
> shake away many businessmen.

what i've seen is that the part which scares away a lot of businesses  
is that if they use GPL code as part of something, they won't be able  
to sell the finished product under the traditional proprietary "no  
source code" terms that they've been using for years. the entire  
software industry seems to have this mentality of "locking up the  
code", because anybody who gets the source code can build the  
software and not have to pay for it.

the GPL means that they have to make a profit through some other  
means- usually through value-added support. redhat is making a  
killing by operating this way, but companies like microsoft avoid  
this. i see two reasons: (1) under their current proprietary model  
they're making money on the software AND on the support, and (2) the  
only way to guarantee a profit is to guarantee that people will need  
support, which kinda goes against the idea of writing quality  
software in the first place.

i don't think microsoft actually cares about licensing- if they could  
find a way to squeeze as much profit out of GPL software as they do  
from their proprietary software, i think they would release all of  
their own products under the GPL just for the benefit of having  
millions of unpaid people around the world improving their code for  
them.

microsoft's number one concern is that of any publicly held company-  
making a profit.

as for binc... i'm not sure i'm really qualified to have my opinion  
mean anything, seeing as how i don't use binc on any live servers  
(yet) but if anybody cares i'm in favour of leaving it under the GPL.

--------------------------------------------------
| John M. Simpson - KG4ZOW - Programmer At Large |
| http://www.jms1.net/           <[email protected]> |
--------------------------------------------------
| Mac OS X proves that it's easier to make UNIX  |
| pretty than it is to make Windows secure.      |
--------------------------------------------------