Disallowing distribution of binaries

[John Cowan]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

> However, to ensure a revenue from our effort, we would like to add
> an additional restriction to the GNU GPL license: to disallow
> distribution of the software in *compiled* form on non-open
> source operating systems. Unfortunately this is not compliant
> with the Open Source Definition (v1.7, section 2).

It also steps on Section 3, which requires that derivative works
be distributable on the same terms as the original: a compiled
version is a derivative work.

> I am sure we can make money even we place the software under the GPL
> for all OSes, but the question is for how long? How do we prevent
> anyone from taking our business by simply copying what we are doing?
> I cannot convince myself that we can make money in the long run by
> keeping the software open source as it is defined by OSI, and it is
> even harder to convince investors.

Ask Red Hat.  Everything they produce can be, and is, freely copied
by others.  They survive by maintaining a superior brand reputation
for service and support.

Nothing in the OSD requires you to provide service and support to
people who have not paid you for it, either directly or by buying
a registered copy of the software.

Individual users may be willing to use a cheap (or even zero cost)
knockoff, but unless your program is a game or something similarly
throwaway, serious users will want service and support and will be
willing to pay for them.

See esr's papers at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings .

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter