Dual licensing

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote:

> All, esp. Sam:
> 
> It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source
> software for profit under "internal use", and not pay the original
> author.

  If what you want is to create a monopoly and charge a monopoly rent
(paying the author royalties) or control "internal use", then you don't
want open source.  As a contributor to Open Source I oppose the concept of
monopolies and monopoly rents, and do not care what sector (public,
private, education, etc) a user/contributor comes from, or whether they
are for-profit or not.

  That is my choice, and I choose Free/Libre and Open Source Software.  

  If you don't agree with that choice, then create/use/distribute/modify
non-free software.  As soon as you go with non-free software you have lost
the open-sharing of the open source development model which exists only
because of the lack of a monopoly required to collect a monopoly rent or
control "internal use", so you should not concern yourself with "trying to
have your cake and eating mine too".




Off-topic plug:  If you are Canadian, are a supporter of Commons-based
peer production, the Internet, FLOSS, are opposed to the DMCA being
brought into Canada...  We need you.  We are running an information
campaign during the federal election on these issues:
http://digital-copyright.ca/

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Open letters with Susan Crean http://www.flora.ca/creators/
 Petition for Users' Rights, Protect Internet creativity and innovation
       Election 2004: http://digital-copyright.ca/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3