Subject: Re: Open Source -> Closed Source
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:30:45 +0900

>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com> writes:

    Santiago> On the other hand, the move that you speak about is only
    Santiago> possible for niche markets. I'm quite sure that if, for
    Santiago> instance, ghostscript or gcc went proprietary, a bunch
    Santiago> of people will take it off the point of the last free
    Santiago> license and keep on with development.

Ghostscript _is_ proprietary, has been for a decade, and AFAIK _still_
is distributed under the non-free, non-OSD-conforming Aladdin Free
Public License (at least, that's what my CVS checkout says).  As far
as I know, nobody has ever bothered to actually do any development
based on GNU Ghostscript, and as far as I know rather few people even
use GNU Ghostscript.

What makes GCC non-proprietary is not the GPL; it's the FSF covenants
of incorporation and the assignment contracts it has entered into with
contributors.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.