support requirement

[Dj]

VAB wrote:

> A fact rarely mentioned on the list is that release under a
> license other than the GPL brings with it the danger that
> the software product will be reimplemented under the GPL.
> This is likely if Vendor X releases under a license which
> is unattractive due to say, required support terms.

That reads more like carefully couched GPL blackmail.

"Release under GPL or we'll copy your product make it GPL ourselves".

That's real scary... especially after the previous discussion of
selling the idea of open source code to corporate types. The threat
of duplication here is emphasised for not opening up enough, and
that's not going to encourage them to open up at all.

What are the ethics of duplicating the functionality of an application?

Oh, and there's an assumption that Vendor X's application will be
sufficently compelling as to take up a position of standardness in
it's niche yet there's no assurance of that.

I suspect to sell the open sourcing idea within Vendor X, someone's
going to need a bit more than a faith that the product will be picked up
by the community.

Dj