What's the problem of D...,D will be dead?

[Jari-Matti Mäkelä]

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

> For example the software I'm developing is ofently licenced under
> a Apache, MPL or BSD like licence. But not all. Software which I
> want to get money for is always licenced unter a GPL/dual
> licence, which boils down to about the same licensing terms like
> Trolltech's Qt Licence: Software is OpenSource, but

> using it in
> a CSS or commercial application requires obtaining a licence;

'commercial software' doesn't mean absolute no to 'GPL'ed or 'Open
source' software.

> if
> the software is going to be GPL, then you may use my stuff for
> free. If software developed with my stuff is again published
> under a dual licence (like e.g. MySQL), it's considered
> commercial, but licencing fees are much lower.

I don't think it's possible to dual license a program that is using
previously GPL'ed code without a permission from the original authors.
Actually it is, but the second license should fulfill all the terms of GPL.

>> If non-GPL is so bad, what is the deal with Apache and Mozilla?
>>  Is their popularity a fluke?
> 
> Those are usually compiled with GCC, which is GPLed, yet they're
> not infected by GPL.

Hmm, infected :-/

Unless you're a commercial compiler writer it should definitely be
better for you to use a GPL'ed compiler. Well, at least I don't like
potential hidden back door features of closed source compilers.

-- 
Jari-Matti