On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:38:29 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: > I don't think most > people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL- > licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.
It's perfectly legal, AFAIK.
I don't particularly like this business model, but there exist many many
worse ones...
The reasons why I don't like this business model are:
* in many cases it generates the interest to persuade potential
proprietary-license buyers that the proprietary variant is somewhat
better or the only alternative (possibly contributing to spread FUD
about the GNU GPL)
* I fail to see the usefulness (from a downstream recipient's point of
view) of a proprietary variant, when a technically identical piece of
software is available under the GNU GPL (the only exceptions are maybe
libraries and the like...)
* some of the downstream recipients do not get freedoms, and this does
not "sound good"
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpUOOzaj5DWO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
