[OT] open-source license issues

[Nick Sabalausky]

"spir" <denis.spir at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.3421.1302596976.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
> This is complete misinterpretation. *All* free software can be sold.
>

Technically, yes. Realistically, no. If there's software that's 
free-as-in-freedom, then it's inevitably free-as-in-beer as well. If it's 
free-as-in-beer, then who the hell is going to buy it, and what the heck 
for?

That said, there is at least *one* thing I like about GPL: From what 
(incredibly little) I understand of it, it seems that it's actually 
realistic to have a dual-license between GPL and commercial/proprietary. 
I've seen software out there that allows the user to choose between getting 
it under GPL for free, or getting it non-GPL for a fee. I can see how that 
can work out (depending, of course, on the incomprehensible details of the 
GPL). But if you changed it from "GPL or commercial" to, say, "BSD or 
commercial", then the "commercial" choice would seem to loose all its value. 
You'd have to charge for something else, like support or merchandice or 
something.

Actually, because of that, I could likely be enticed by an (L)GPL-like 
license if it was actually readable like zlib, BSD, or MIT, and easier for 
users/developers to comply with.