Dual licensing

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Stephen C. North" <north at research.att.com> writes:

> 	Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user.  It's not
> 	about control by the author (except in specific limited respects).  If
> 	you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
> 	Freedom is about giving up control.  More freedom, less control.  More
> 	control, less freedom.  Get it?
> 
> Then why isn't it just public domain software?

Public domain software is indeed an example of free software.

> I don't see what's so bad about having contributors agree to
> share with the author if they share with anyone else.  That
> doesn't seem like 'control' to me.

There is, of course, nothing bad about contributors agreeing to share
with the author.  What's bad is *requiring* them to share with the
author.  It makes it impossible to keep a set of changes private
within a circle of friends.  Freedom includes the freedom not to
share.

Again, free software is about giving up control.  The GPL gives up
control in a special way, one which ensures that nobody else can take
control.  The BSD license gives up control in a much broader sense.
They are both free software.  If you don't want to give up control,
then don't produce free software.  There are many other choices.

"Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many
days" (Ecclesiastes 11:1).

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3