Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT)

Ian Lance Taylor writes:
 > Another person made the same comment in private mail, so clearly I
 > should not have mentioned payment, as that is merely a side issue.

I'll make the same point, then, without referring to payment.  You
didn't address my suggestion of creating a "poison pill" contribution.

 > My true objection, as I stated later in the message, is not that I
 > am not getting paid; it is that somebody else has special
 > privileges to my work which I do not have. [...]  I don't mind
 > letting other people use my code, but I'm not comfortable if they
 > get to use it in ways that I can't.

When someone writes a program, they own it.  They hold complete
control over it.  If they choose to make that program freely copyable, 
they are giving up many ways they could use that program.  You get to
use it in ways they can't control.

Now you, the ingrate, are saying that you refuse to contribute because
they can use it in some ways you can't.  Sure, I can see how you might
feel that way, but our feelings are often irrational.  (Many people
feel that a minimum wage is fair, but those people probably didn't
become unhirable because their labor is no longer worth the minimum
wage).

I'm not trying to deny your feelings.  I'm pointing out that they're
not rational.  You got a gift; the gift has no strings attached.  If
you tell the creator how to improve the gift, the creator will
incorporate them into further gifts.  Who is hurt if the creator
sometimes sells the same thing he gives?

I view dual-licensing as critical to the success of many free software 
businesses.

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | can outdo them. Homeschool!