Subject: Re: [Freesw] Re: FreeDevelopers
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:30:12 +0900

>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Starchman <glen@enabledventures.com> writes:

    Glen> Playing the devil's advocate for a minute... why should a
    Glen> software developer use a GPL when they are charging for
    Glen> their software when that opens up the possibility that the
    Glen> organization they are selling to can make a few
    Glen> modifications and resell the software to others? Or, worse
    Glen> yet, from a financial standpoint, *give away* the derivative
    Glen> software?

It's not a rhetorical question, you know.  There are affirmative
answers: seeking them is what this list is about.  Also cf. Shapiro
(not Jonathan ;) and Varian, _Information Rules_.

    Glen> commercial (I tend to prefer that phrase to proprietary)
    Glen> software.

But it's not your choice, you know.  "Commercial" means "something" is
"for sale."  It is possible (eg, if the buyers are ASPs and do not
intend to redistribute) to sell free software at monopoly prices.  It
is possible to sell free software at a tidy profit if bundled with
other services.  The buyers _do_ get access to source and _may_
redistribute it; they just don't want to, or at least redistribution
doesn't destroy the target market.

"Proprietary" means "if you want to use these ideas, you have to pay
what I ask."  Source may or may not be distributed, there may or may
not be a price to run the software.  But you have no right to pass it
on.

You really shouldn't confuse those two words.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."