Subject: Re: RFC on this situation
From: nick@nsis.cl.nec.co.jp (Gavin Thomas Nicol)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 08:30:58 JST

>> 	      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. 
>
>Now this is a whole different issue.  Examine your motives here.

  I have no objection to someone using my software, but if someone
is *selling* my software in a proprietary system, this represents
a compromise of my ideals (which would be to allow *no* proprietary
usage). As such, I feel I deserve to get paid for helping someone
develop a proprietary system which they will make money from. I
suppose it boils down to:

a) If someone wants to use my software to further the 
   use or creation of free software, that's fine. This is
   the primary purpose of creating the software in the
   first place.

b) If someone want to use my software in a propietary system,
   I cannot see why they should not pay for the right to do so.

Introducing usage as a form of profit is not applicable in this
context, where I was talking about direct monetary profit from
selling a proprietary system, and particulary as the software
I'm talking about is a library, not an application (though those
will follow).

>>  		 Also, I want to
>> maintain control of my work. These two reasons are why I'd never put 
>> anything into the public domain. 
>
>This is yet a third issue.  Realize that if you let a copy out under
>copyleft (e.g. FSF license), you will not be able to maintain control.
>Any person or a dozen people can make alternative versions, and if your
>version isn't the best, and the other folks continue to maintain the
>software, they will gradually squeeze you out.  If you're really spooked
>about this idea, free software is really not for you.

Well, as stated above, making better free software is the prime motivation
anyway. If others can make it better, then that's exactly the desired
effect. If people use my sofwtare as the base for a better free product,
and it gets wide usage, I'll be happy. Given the situation above, I still
retain the original copyright anyway, but on the GPL'd version, control
is less of an issue because the GPL restricts the usages to those I
desire, though in the beginning, I'd like to be the primary maintainer. 

>For myself I'm glad that by the time I get tired of some software,
>there are usually other people who want to keep moving it on.  I wrote

I imagine I will get to the same point. At that point, I will probably
turn the copyright over to the FSF (is it possible to do that?).

Thank you for a well reasoned article.