The success of open-source can only be measured
by the number of people using open-source code.

Counting proprietary programs as an open-source failure
is a bad measure.

Given a proprietary program that uses open-source code,
you have more users that can find bugs in code,
more users that can add features to code,
more users that can possibly contribute to open-source.

All of these benefits can slide back to the open-source
code base. If the bug is in teh original open-soruce,
the user doesn't care that it's wrapped in a proprietary
program, they will send the bug/fix to the person who
can make it work.

So what if a company uses teh code to release a proprietary
program? if the program never existed before, great, new program.
if an open source version already existed, nothing will prevent
the open-source version from adding any new functionality
that is in the proprietary version.

in any event, nothing will prevent an open-source version
of the same program from being released if a group of 
people choose to put the effort into it.

Don't think of proprietary programs as bad.
Think of them as another distribution channel for 
your open-source software.

Don't think of proprietary software companies as bad.
Think of them as a group of experts that would benefit
from your code being bug free and feature rich.

you can always implement their features in your code 
when you feel like it.

dont think of proprietary developers as evil,
think of them as a somewhat short-sighted group of 
people paid to use and work with your code.

and you get all the long term benefits.

As long as the license prevents proprietary forks
in your code, there is nothing to worry about.
But restrictions intended to further limit 
proprietary use of open-source code is 
short-sighted itself.

Greg



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

