Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Russell Nelson <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:45:05 -0400 (EDT)

Ian Lance Taylor writes:
 > Let's say I want to contribute to EROS.  I add some new feature.  I
 > send you a patch.  I haven't been paid, of course, nor would I expect
 > to be; I've just made a contribution to the community.
 > Then you make a proprietary release of the code.  Now the new feature
 > I wrote is making you money, but you aren't paying me anything.

Yes he is.  He gave away his code in the first place.  As in any other 
free market transaction, you have to decide for yourself whether
you've been paid enough (in advance, I might add).

Such license terms are only appropriate when the original author has a
significant investment, larger than any expected contributions.

 > That's the basic problem with a dual-use license: you get special
 > privileges to use my work without any form of compensation.
 > Now, there are certainly people who are not bothered by such a
 > license.  But it bothers me.

You are, of course, free to write a contribution in the form of a
patch, and copyright it under terms that allow only non-proprietary
distribution.  You would then take yourself out of the comfy chair[1]
and put the author in it.

[1] Allusion to the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch intended.

-russ nelson <>
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | can outdo them. Homeschool!