Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:52:00 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: GPL's effects on commercial development (Was: Sun's web site) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000819094301.04df82b0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200008190227.VAA54783@nospam.hiwaay.net> References: <Message from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20000817232506.04d0d100@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:27 PM 8/18/2000, David Kelly wrote: >> >Presumably even the mods others (anonymous >> >contributors who don't go to lengths to claim their own copyright on the >> >revisions) put into it. What I'm saying is the copyright holder is still >> >free at a later date to jump back in with a non-GPL version including >> >developments during its GPL phase. >> >> But no one will buy it. > >Why would nobody buy a proprietary something based on GPL'ed code? It must be a LOT better, and even then it's a tough sell so long as the GPLed version is "good enough." It's very, VERY hard to compete with something that's free, even if its your own free something. And in the case of the GPL, it's particularly hard, because the GPL zealots will attempt to put you out of business. What's more, they won't let you incorporate their changes into the paid version. >Somebody needs to explain this to RedHat. They sure do! Red Hat is losing LOTS of money, and the GPL is why. It states frankly that it does not know if it can ever be profitable. >And BSDi. Before they go broke. BSDi has the advantage that BSD/OS is not GPLed. This is the reason why BSDi is profitable and Red Hat is not. >> What's more, that version must be free of any >> additions which were contributed by third parties under the GPL. Because >> this is difficult to do, the GPL in effect wrests control away from >> the copyright holder. The horse is out of the barn for good, and the >> copyright holder cannot profit from licensing the software. > >I disagree. See my other lengthy message. I believe the original >copyright holder retains all rights and assumes the rights suckered out >of those who worked as sub-slave labor on enhancements. Not so. All they must do is slap their own copyright notices on the files they've modified, and their changes cannot be incorporated into the paid version without permission. Which they won't give. >It sabotages efforts of anyone other than the original copyright holder >who is the granter of the terms stipulated the GPL. It sabotages anyone >else's efforts to fork a non-GPL version. But not the originator's. It sabotages the originator's attempts to do this too. And that's the intent. Stallman *wants* to sabotage commercial developers. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000819094301.04df82b0>