Subject: Re: Another reason to go GPL
From: Bob Rogers (rogers-netatalk@rgrjr.dyndns.org)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2001 - 12:42:44 EST
From: Matthew Geier <matthew@arts.usyd.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:41:36 +1000
"Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." wrote:
>
> A reason not to go GPL: companies will be less likely to assist with
> development if they can't release their own version without being
> _compelled_ to give away everything they've done on it.
>
> Perhaps Samba should consider the BSD license.
>
> GPL: please don't.
One of the samba team posted a counter to that in the samba list this
morning - GPL stops people from enhancing their own version and
withholding it from the community . . .
This is not 100% true; as I understand it, you can enhance GPLed code
and keep your modifications proprietary as long as they are only used
in-house. So only resellers are affected. And even resellers should be
reassured by the fact that this restriction can work to their benefit:
Their competitors will be able to get the enhancements they sell, but
they will also be able to get any enhancements sold by competitors. In
the GPL world, resellers couldn't compete on features any more, since
everybody would be selling approximately the same thing, but doesn't the
real money come from support contracts anyway? And the feature list
might actually grow faster under GPL.
Of course, this is not a legal opinion, but it is based on having
recently studied Open Source licenses for a commercially-funded project
now getting underway. We decided to adopt the GNU GPL largely because
it prohibits "taking the code private" and potentially usurping the
active development stream. And we expect companies to be more willing
to publish their local enhancements knowing that the playing field is
level.
With that said, I should mention that I am talking about a CAD
application, so we expect the developers and users to come from IC
design shops; we do not expect any resellers. These companies are not
in the CAD business, so releasing patches is not going to affect their
business, even if it helps their competitors indirectly. And they can
still keep their locally-developed stuff private, if that is a concern.
I realize that netatalk is in a different situation, since there are
already a number of resellers who are part of the community, and
changing the license would put new constraints on how they do business.
So, I'm rooting for GPL, but realize that it may not be appropriate.
My $0.02 (albeit greatly inflated).
-- Bob Rogers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:36 EDT