Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
Date: 12 Jun 2004 10:11:54 -0400

Marius Amado Alves <> writes:

> >>>I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused.  How can be it open source, and yet
> >>>if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
> >>
> >>The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
> >> software philosophy.>
> > Please read:
> >
> > Note in particular:
> >    "Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or
> >     without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for
> >     distribution, to anyone anywhere.  Being free to do these things
> >     means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for
> >     permission."
> I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software
> in the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors
> out of the loop is silly and unfair.

Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user.  It's not
about control by the author (except in specific limited respects).  If
you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
Freedom is about giving up control.  More freedom, less control.  More
control, less freedom.  Get it?

You don't have to love free software.  You don't have to think it's a
good idea.  If you want to do something else, then do it.  The free
software would welcome your help, but we're doing reasonably well on
our own.

(As someone who has been participating in these arguments for 14 years
now, I'm grateful that at least we no longer have to hear the
arguments about how free software can never work in the commercial

license-discuss archive is at