Re: What about an OS monopoly under GNU license?

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 11:46 AM 3/29/98 -0500, stan johnson wrote:

>It is undoubtedly true that code is being written and released under the   
>GPL which otherwise *could* be released under the Berkeley-style license   
>and thus incorporated in for-profit/commercial software. Nothing prevents   
>any programmer from making the Berkeley choice now.  

True! I suspect that the only reason that more do not is that they're
not aware of the option. If we tell these programmers, "Hey! If you're 
willing to use the Berkeley licence you'll help make the development
of commercial software easier," I'd bet a lot of them would say, "Sure!"
Most of them realize that, at one time or another in their careers,
such code could prove useful to THEM, so there would be payback.
 
>The question which I've not seen addressed here is whether such Berkeley   
>license release *would have been* made if the GPL were not seen as an   
>option. I've not seen any justification for any such assumption. What do   
>those who have written GPL'ed code say? Their voice seems to be unheard   
>here, and I think theirs is the voice that matters. 

Many of the ones to whom I've spoken either did not know about the
Berkeley license or were under the impression that there wasn't
a significant difference. Only a few seemed to think that
they should be paid if their code was used commercially -- and
most of those seemed to believe that it would be worth it if they,
in turn, got more code to use.

>Your position, if followed, would make it the expected behavior for   
>programmers to write code, then in effect turn it over to for-profit   
>enterprises (and others, of course) and say "here it is! make all the
money   
>you can off it!"  

Yep. And the payback comes when that person needs code for
a certain algorithm and can do the same.
 
>At present, clearly, those who wish to may; those who don't, needn't. 
> 
>The options are there and known. Your position and the positions of others   
>are each more than amply clear. I can see value in each approach. Can we   
>let the programmers each make their own decision? 

I think we should. But let's make it an INFORMED decision, and let's
advocate the use of the least restrictive license because of the additional
benefit it provides. Agreed?

--Brett