Mike Mascari wrote:
> Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is
> BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the
> major developers:
>
> A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
> sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
> have been working on this *for years*
>
My understanding is that BSD allows someone to take the code commercial without
consulting the original developers at all. With GPL, a company would have to
negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holders in order to use the
code for a closed source commercial product. This would ensure that the
copyright holders receive some compensation. (Multiple licensing is a common
strategy; e.g., ReiserFS if offered under GPL and commercial licensing. It is
also possible to let users choose one of several licenses, so you can release
your code under BSD and GPL and let users decide which they prefer, although
this could create additional problems with integrating contributed code.) With
BSD you are basically saying that anyone can use the code anyway they want,
even if they take it and sell it as part of a commercial closed source
product. I'm also happy if major postgres developers get sums of cash thrown
their way, but why does BSD make that more likely?
Also, I will point out that the GPL allows anyone to make closed source
modifications to code as long as they do not redistribute the modifications.
Its perfectly fine to modify the code and use the modified version within an
organization. Placing modifications under the GPL only applies when these
modifications are distributed to others. I believe some of the GPL 'poison'
comments incorrectly implied that the GPL restricts organizations from making
closed source modifications for internal use.
T.
--
Timothy H. Keitt
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: 805-892-2519, FAX: 805-892-2510
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~keitt/
