Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> Why? Because we have specialized, complex hardware (telescopes
>> and instruments) purchased with software from vendors using
>> non-GPL compatible licenses. We, as a non-profit organization,
>> cannot afford the extra $$$
>
>
> You can't afford 25.00? Or even 200.00? Or even a 50% discount
> do non-profits?
We're talking on the order of $500,000(USD) dollars - these are not
inexpensive systems (a telescope mount assembly is millions of
dollars) and (whether it's politic or not) the vendors have no desire to
put their source out. We cannot pass such project cost increases on to
our customers (we have none). Of course, if we can get a non-GPL license
for ODBC for the smaller sums you've mentioned, that would help. (The last
GPL package we tried to negotiate a non-GPL license source for [still
open-source, just not GPL] came with a >$25,000(USD) price tag. We've since
switched to an equivalent product available under a BSD license - not as nice
a product, but likely 'good enough'.)
> And actually if you don't distribute your code you can but I don't know
> what you do.
That's what we originally thought, but you cannot distribute a mix
of GPL and non-GPL to outside development teams either! (Subcontractors
or partner institutions). We dropped the aforementioned GPL package
for this very reason.
I realize we're a fringe case. But I do hope people will consider
that such fringe cases do exist.
--
Steve Wampler -- swampler@noao.edu
The gods that smiled on your birth are now laughing out loud.
