Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >  You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> > what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Which means free for *use* by anyone and for *modifications or forming larger
works* by anyone willing to comply with the GPL, which says you shouldn't deny
other persons the same freedom given to you.

> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
> improvements as GPL as well.

Jim already commented on this one.

> Say Yvonne builds some significant functionality that costs more money than
> Yvonne is willing to give away. Yvonne would like to spend one million
> dollars developing some software, then sell it for $10 each to 100,000
> people. Yvonne can do this. Betty can't.

Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
are doing.

> (That's why commercial game companies, for example, don't use GPLed game
> libraries. It's cheaper to rewrite the libraries from scratch than to give
> away the game when you're done.)

I've always said rewriting from scratch is an option.  Those guys just do it
instead of whine endlessly on the GPL.

> I suspect large projects that aren't useful to individual programmers will
> very rarely be spontaneously developed under the GPL.

Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.

Post a reply to this message