Subject: Re: Software Licensing
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:51:20 +0900

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

    Thomas> I think he means the distinction between copyleft and non,
    Thomas> not the distinction between libre and proprietary.  It is

But that's just as bad, for basically the same reason: non-copyleft
free software licenses are just as free as copyleft licenses.

    Thomas> also worth noting that, by (unfortunate) definition, there
    Thomas> is no such thing as a royalty on an open source *or* a
    Thomas> free software program.

Of course there is, if you have received all upstream code under
licenses that permit dual licensing.  It's a free software *license*
that cannot involve receipt of royalties.  And that's a definition
that has proved its worth over time.


-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory