M
Michael R. Batchelor
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Curt Wuollet wrote:
> As you can plainly see, there are plenty of people who would
> like to take work freely given and exploit it for profit. To
> take what is Open and close it, for whatever reason, is a
> step in the wrong direction.
Depends on your motive. This is exactly the effect of the BSD style license. Red Hat, GPL lovers that they are, have taken OpenBSD, which is freely available, but not GPL, and have created
the Stronghold web server, which is not freely distributable, and is not free to use. You've got to buy a license.
Now, most people in the GPL crowd find that repulsive, but Theo and the crew at OpenBSD are free to release their code under any license they want, and that's how they choose to do it.
> If you, as the author, decide to license _your_ code, both
> under the GPL and your private license, you are free to do so
> and then your product, using your code need not be GPL.
This is an important point that most people fail to understand. If you, as a developer, create some neat-o whiz-bang program that the whole world wants, and stuff it out on the net under GPL, then I'm not free to take that code, do something with it myself, and resell it closed source. The GPL protects *YOUR* right to make the code freely available. But it's still your code. I can say, "Hey. Good stuff there. Sell me a license to put it in my xyz not GPL." You can look at my offer, decide it's good money, and give me a piece of paper that says I'm free to distribute exactly the same software, but commercially licensed, and I don't have the GPL restrictions. In other words, if you release
something under the GPL then that's not an exclusive license to the world. You can commercially license it to 40 different people,
who are free to us it in what ever manner you gave them permission. But the can't take the free distribution and use it any way they want. They can only use the free distribution if they also make their stuff free.
See Curt's next paragraph.
> The only thing you are prohibited from is taking someone
> else's GPL code and making it part of a closed product
> against their wishes.
The GPL has a place. It's exactly the reason the whole GNU/Linux movement exists today. The BSD style license has a place. It promotes commercial development in a way the GPL restricts. Closed source has a place. It feeds most of us. There isn't a "best" license. It's more a matter of a "best fit" license depending on your purpose.
MB
> As you can plainly see, there are plenty of people who would
> like to take work freely given and exploit it for profit. To
> take what is Open and close it, for whatever reason, is a
> step in the wrong direction.
Depends on your motive. This is exactly the effect of the BSD style license. Red Hat, GPL lovers that they are, have taken OpenBSD, which is freely available, but not GPL, and have created
the Stronghold web server, which is not freely distributable, and is not free to use. You've got to buy a license.
Now, most people in the GPL crowd find that repulsive, but Theo and the crew at OpenBSD are free to release their code under any license they want, and that's how they choose to do it.
> If you, as the author, decide to license _your_ code, both
> under the GPL and your private license, you are free to do so
> and then your product, using your code need not be GPL.
This is an important point that most people fail to understand. If you, as a developer, create some neat-o whiz-bang program that the whole world wants, and stuff it out on the net under GPL, then I'm not free to take that code, do something with it myself, and resell it closed source. The GPL protects *YOUR* right to make the code freely available. But it's still your code. I can say, "Hey. Good stuff there. Sell me a license to put it in my xyz not GPL." You can look at my offer, decide it's good money, and give me a piece of paper that says I'm free to distribute exactly the same software, but commercially licensed, and I don't have the GPL restrictions. In other words, if you release
something under the GPL then that's not an exclusive license to the world. You can commercially license it to 40 different people,
who are free to us it in what ever manner you gave them permission. But the can't take the free distribution and use it any way they want. They can only use the free distribution if they also make their stuff free.
See Curt's next paragraph.
> The only thing you are prohibited from is taking someone
> else's GPL code and making it part of a closed product
> against their wishes.
The GPL has a place. It's exactly the reason the whole GNU/Linux movement exists today. The BSD style license has a place. It promotes commercial development in a way the GPL restricts. Closed source has a place. It feeds most of us. There isn't a "best" license. It's more a matter of a "best fit" license depending on your purpose.
MB