Re: Nomination question: Redhat
Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
GPL'd libraries encourage free software. RMS, at a recent talk,
described how the GPL'd readline library had encouraged one author to
release his package as free software because he wanted to use readline.
I wrote a library (called libavl) and assigned copyright to the FSF.
It is licensed under GPL. I personally believe that this is the Right
Thing To Do, because it encourages other people to write GPL'd
Since I announced the availability of libavl on freshmeat, and since
it was moved to ftp.gnu.org (from alpha.gnu.org) a few weeks ago, I've
received a number of messages from people asking whether I'd consider
changing the license to LGPL. Some of these people wanted to use it
with incompatibly licensed software, but one of them came right out
and asked me whether I'd be willing to sell him a license for
inclusion in a proprietary, non-Open Source program.
Of course, since I assigned copyright to the FSF, I have no power to
change the license, but I wouldn't want to anyway, and that's simply
because I feel no urge to help other people write their non-free
software. People writing non-free software are presumably doing it
because they are trying to make lots of money off it. As a result,
they have plenty of money to spend writing their own libraries. I
feel no compunction to help them with something that I find morally
wrong to begin with (non-free software). Using the GPL on libraries
helps me to achieve this goal.
 It is a fact that you can make more money off software if you
restrict people from using and sharing it. However, I have no
objections to making money from software per se. In fact, I've
written and sold GPL'd programs to people more than once in the past.
"To the engineer, the world is a toy box full of sub-optimized and
feature-poor toys." --Scott Adams