Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
Date: 26 Jun 1999 15:00:17 -0400

   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).

Another person made the same comment in private mail, so clearly I
should not have mentioned payment, as that is merely a side issue.

My true objection, as I stated later in the message, is not that I am
not getting paid; it is that somebody else has special privileges to
my work which I do not have (payment is merely one traditional way to
reasonably acquire such privileges).

I am not arguing that this is immoral or unethical or unfair.  I am
arguing that I, for one, am less likely to contribute to a project
under such a license.  I don't mind letting other people use my code,
but I'm not comfortable if they get to use it in ways that I can't.

Therefore, if the goal of the license is to encourage people to
contribute, such special privileges should be avoided if possible.

I've made similar arguments before on this list.