Subject: Re: RFC on this situation
From: (Gavin Thomas Nicol)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 16:33:07 JST

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was actually referring to proprietary
use of the library. FSB's would, of course, be allowed free use of
the library. Actually, the reason why I used the word "commercial"
is because proprietary use, to me, means commercial use of the *software
itself*, whereas companies like Cygnus generally charge for *maintaining*
the software, which to me, are two entirely different businesses. 
(Unless I am badly mistaken, the software Cygnus sells is usually not 
looked upon as the prime resource/income generator, but rather, 
a public asset that needs maintenance.)

I knew about the GhostScript system. I wanted to know if people feel
that you are basically selling yourself. For myself, I'd like to
distribute it completely under the terms on the GPL, but I realise
that if I do this, the library will be restricted in the uses it will
be put to. The money part is really not that important, but if someone
is going to profit from my work, I'd like a piece of it. Also, I want to
maintain control of my work. These two reasons are why I'd never put 
anything into the public domain. 

Personally, I feel that the niche for companies like Cygnus will
continue growing. Another niche is in companies that offer 
integrated systems using free software. That is, companies that can
say: "Hey: you can spend $XXXX of the commercial version, or I can
offer you a comparable system for $XXXX/2. Either way, you have to
pay me to install it, because you can't do it yourself. Also if you
use this version, you get *full control* over how it is used and