Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 07 Jun 2004 14:48:53 -0400

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> I think the open source "way" requires public availability,
> technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have
> to sleep on this.

Let's not confuse bazaar-like development with open source software.
Remember that "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" was a contrast between
two different types of open-source development, specifically the ones
(formerly) practiced by the FSF (Cathedral) and by Linus (Bazaar).  It
was not about any sort of proprietary development.


> > Direct sale as such does not violate OSD #6.  It would only violate
> > OSD #6 if certain people were not permitted to buy it.  "No
> > discrimination" does not mean "available to all;" it means "no
> > specific restriction."
> 
> This interpretation of clause 6 seems radically different from the
> ones I've seen in the past, it seems more 'liberal', all in all
> 'better', and together with your first paragraph (also a more
> 'liberal' interpretation to me), it promises to make theoretically
> sound business models that were not sound before, at least in my
> mind. I'll have to sleep on all this. Thanks a lot.

It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
software.  I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.

Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
software.  In fact, any requirement that GPL software be available to
all would violate one of the basic FSF requirements for free software:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

   "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use
    them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
    that they exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not
    be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular
    way."

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3