Subject: I want terms that are midway between proprietary and GPL
From: Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:36:49 -0400

	Proprietary terms like patents and the BSD license seem to be
	based on the assumption that nobody will maintain or improve
	intellectual property for gratis.  Therefore they must be
	incented by the opportunity to extract money.

	The GPL seems to be based on the assumption that everybody
	will maintain or improve intellectual property for gratis.
	Therefore no money is necessary as an incentive.

Each set of assumptions has its successes.  I believe the GNU tools
and Linux show much more success for the GPL than patents.  I find GPL
vs. BSD to be a closer call due to the market success of BSD, but
still in favor of GPL because of the advantages of open source.

Each set of assumptions has its failures.  I am irritated when a
company takes a university project containing 20 man years of
publically funded or subsidized[1] work, adds two months of release
engineering, and makes it proprietary and non-gratis.  I am also
irritated when the core developers abandon gimp for a paying job, and
at all the libre office package projects abandoned once the true size
and difficulty of the task becomes apparent.

   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
   |  I want terms that are midway between proprietary and GPL.  |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------+

[1] shap makes the counterargument that universities are not
publically funded or subsidized, and even if they are, the IP
contracts researchers have signed are the whole of the obligation they
have to share the fruits of their labor with the public.


League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf/patents.text
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA