Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:11:13PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote: > > > Well, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use > > the library. > > This is a common misconception, but entirely untrue. There are many > free software licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, which are > compatible with the GPL.However the combined work of a GPL'd library and a BSD-licensed application would indeed have to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, correct? It just happens that the application's source code in this case is dual licensed.> You can read more about various free software licenses here: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html > > > BSD is too much too because changes in the software world (improvements, > > bugs, backdoors) would not be available to you. > > This depends entirely on who is making the changes. There are many > successful projects, such as Apache, where improvements are freely shared.Indeed, it is in the interest of people who make bugfixes or improvements to contribute them back to the original project. Otherwise, they have to do the extra work of tracking the main releases against their modifications.> > I think for hardware, dual-licensing is the way to go. You can use a BSD > > license as the second license, but only available to people who pay (or > > any other reward, or nothing) for that version. > > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to redistribute the > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for software under > this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give copies to > anyone.If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece of software they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away copies for free to their competitors? Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to keep their modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of letting a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it GPL). Josh -- Josh Haberman <joshua@haberman.com>
--- Joshua Haberman <joshua@haberman.com> wrote:> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote: > > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to > redistribute the > > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for > software under > > this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give > copies to > > anyone. > > If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece > of software > they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away > copies for > free to their competitors? > > Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to > keep their > modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of > letting > a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it > GPL).I guess I should clear up, I'm OK now with going BSD for the codec libs. Before this all came up I was planning on doing a BSD FLAC subset decoder anyway. And even RMS advised the Xiph guys to go BSD. But to go forward I need, at a minimum, the go-ahead from libFLAC contributors in the AUTHORS file. At the same it would be nice if the majority of users were warm and fuzzy too. As for making money licensing, I never had any intention to (and still don't). Nobody but M$/Dolby/Fraunhoffer/etc. can get away with that. I wouldn't mind contracting out but a codec has to be popular before that happens anyway. Overall the answer to the question has been "yes", especially after clearing up that FLAC won't be tied only to Ogg. We'll see how it goes as the discussion winds out over the next few days (hopefully no one with a strong opinion is on a long vacation :) Josh __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:25:47 -0800 (PST) Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote:> --- Joshua Haberman <joshua@haberman.com> wrote: > > Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote: > > > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to > > redistribute the > > > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for > > software under > > > this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give > > copies to > > > anyone. > > > > If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece > > of software > > they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away > > copies for > > free to their competitors? > > > > Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to > > keep their > > modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of > > letting > > a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it > > GPL). > > I guess I should clear up, I'm OK now with going BSD for the codec > libs.That particular comment wasn't really targetted toward FLAC, it was just some amateur economic theory about why it might or might not make sense to charge money for freely-licensed software.> As for making money licensing, I never had any intention to > (and still don't). Nobody but M$/Dolby/Fraunhoffer/etc. can > get away with that.I've often wondered whether Rob Leslie has companies that license MAD from him, since MP3 is such a popular codec and MAD is such a good implementation. Why else would he license MAD under GPL instead of LGPL? I should ask him sometime. :-) Josh -- Josh Haberman <joshua@haberman.com>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:07:34PM -0800, Joshua Haberman wrote:> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote: > > This is a common misconception, but entirely untrue. There are many > > free software licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, which are > > compatible with the GPL. > > However the combined work of a GPL'd library and a BSD-licensed > application would indeed have to be distributed under the terms of the > GPL, correct? It just happens that the application's source code in this > case is dual licensed.Yes, it is required that the program be made available to anyone under the terms of the GPL. But this does not mean that non-GPL software cannot use the library; it simply means that the resulting derived work must be made available under the terms of the GPL.> Indeed, it is in the interest of people who make bugfixes or improvements > to contribute them back to the original project. Otherwise, they have to > do the extra work of tracking the main releases against their > modifications.Agreed, especially when the original project demonstrates continued improvement and leadership.> > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to redistribute the > > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for software > > under this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give > > copies to anyone. > > If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece of > software they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away > copies for free to their competitors?Anyone who had possession of the BSD-licensed source code could legally give away a copy to anyone else. Whether this would be in the company's best interest is another matter, but once it happens, the BSD-licensed software is "in the wild" and cannot be contained and made available only to certain parties.> Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to keep > their modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of > letting a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it > GPL).Agreed. I believe this is the Qt model. -- - mdz