Subject: Re: problems with open source
From: bruce@perens.com
Date: 24 Mar 1999 06:22:08 -0000

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stig_Hackv=E4n?= <stig@hackvan.com>
> from a business perspective, bruce, discouraging a free replacement with a
> half-free alternative makes a lot of sense.

Sure, if you as a business person can succeed in killing off a free product
by releasing a half-free alternative, that makes tremendous sense for you.
Were you missing the fact that from the user's or secondary developer's
perspective, that is not the best-case outcome?

> i don't see why you keep discouraging hybrid approaches.

Because I feel they do damage to the cause of free software, for the reason
you've just described. Can you not see that?

> what's this one?  the non-consultants' license?

That's what I was thinking of. I don't feel he's thought through all
of the implications. To make it work from a legal and tax standpoint,
you would need to create a separate corporation for each software
project. The corporation would pay income taxes. The developers aren't
quite stock-holders in a conventional sense, because of the way he wants
to apportion revenue, but they have the right to elect the corporation
executive and the right to sue (big problem, IMO). The developers would
pay income taxes, too - I don't see how to avoid double-taxation. I'd
like to see a corporate lawyer evaluate this, especially the implications
of having developers in different nations.

	Bruce