[OT] open-source license issues

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 12.04.2011 12:45, schrieb 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.

You can also sell support for/with GPL software.

> 
> 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.
> 

Even though the GPL isn't easy to read I think it's not too hard to
comply with (at least v2). Basically it's "release the source of your
changes, don't mix in source from incompatible licenses and don't delete
the original authors from the GPL headers" - the second part may not be
so easy but you also have to comply with it when using any other license
(e.g. don't paste BSD licensed code into boost licensed code) and the
third part is also the same with most licenses: the original
author/copyright holder is mentioned somewhere (mostly in a comment at
the top of source files) and you may not delete that and claim you wrote
everything yourself.

The GPLv3 has some additional restrictions, e.g.
 * "TiVo clause": It isn't sufficient to release the source, the user
has to be able to actually use self compiled versions of that source on
the device you shipped the code with. Named after TiVo devices that ship
with Linux and standard Linux tools but doesn't allow the user to flash
his own system (or modified tools etc) onto the device.
 * Something with patents, I think it was something like "if you hold a
patent that applies to this software and contribute to it you may not
sue people who use this software for violating your patent".
Corporations seem to be unhappy with that but I think it's a legit demand.

Cheers,
- Daniel