Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:33:59AM -0400, Paula Paul wrote:
> I think you've misrepresented my message -
> 
> > 
> > You'll forgive me if I wonder just how much you knew before 
> > the debate,
> > since you had some pretty serious misperceptions about the 
> > fundamentals.
> > 
> 
> Well, you may not like my opinions on 'free software', but my example of
> the application of the GPL was correct.  I don't think I misunderstand
> the GPL and LPGL at all.

You've said, in two separate messages, that releasing software under
the GPL:

 - prevents you from charging for redistributing the software

  on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 02:42:02PM -0400, Paula Paul wrote:
  > The 'Free' Software Foundation absolutely dictates the business model.
  > Anyone can write 'commercial software', as long as you don't restrict or
  > charge fees for redistribution.

 - is the same as releasing it into the public domain

  on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:20:35PM -0400, Paula Paul wrote:
  > But it's hard to come up with good rules for protecting source code
  > that you essentially put in the public domain.

Both of which are laughably wrong misstatements of the GPL and its
related licenses. Of course, it's possible that you understand the GPL
but are deliberately misstating its core tenets for some nefarious
purpose, but I wanted to give you /some/ benefit of the doubt.

I, too, have some issues with the GPL from the standpoint of code I
hope to someday make money from or code that someone else paid me to
write. You have to make your choices based on your goals. I released
a set of DHTML wrapper APIs under the LGPL in order to promote their
widespread use and to encourage feedback and bugfixes and enhancements
within the small community of potential users. I don't know that it
was any more successful than some of the alternatives, such as charging
for the APIs (like Scott Isaacs did, for example) or just giving them
away completely (as Dan Steinman did with his libs). I chose the LGPL
so that people would be more comfortable using the library as part of
a larger project whose code they wished to protect (though with
Javascript, the point is mostly moot, it is still possible to compile
readable code down into obfuscated or performance-oriented compact
versions). I don't think my actions had much effect on the state of
the DHTML API industry, and I wouldn't be afraid to do it again.

Good luck with your business. I suspect I'll never see any of your code. :)

Steve

-- 
"Euphoria is not a business strategy" -- Louis Rossetto