Subject: Re: IPL as a burden
From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
Date: 16 Jan 2001 18:11:55 -0800

Manfred Schmid <> writes:

> > But the clarification that is likely to happen will not
> > be to your liking.
> If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we
> stand. I would prefer that to the current situation.

The current situation is that we all know where we stand--at least,
everybody but you.  We're telling you where we all stand, but you do
not believe us.

> Put yourself in the position of a normal company (not IBM, HP or
> comparable), lets say 100 employees. Any company will sooner or later go
> out of business if it cannot compensate the costs incurred by an
> appropriate revenue stream. 

I've been working on free software for over 10 years.  I've heard this
argument all along.  Over that time there have been quite a few
companies who have made plenty of money on open source software--heck,
I've made plenty of money myself.

But maybe those are all exceptions.  Maybe you're right: maybe you
can't stay in business working on open source software.

So what?

The lesson to draw from that is to not build a business on open source

You seem to be drawing the lesson that we need to redefine the meaning
of ``open source.''  That doesn't make any sense.  If every company
working on open source software goes out of business, that in no way
lessens the value of open source software.

> Since we will be claiming license fees from the customers, we will give
> money back to the community in a clear and transparent way. We think
> that this is a good idea for all parties involved

Great!  Go for it.

Just don't call it ``open source.''