Re: "Open Source" Motif
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original Motif
> > license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is: would this
> > generate enough revenue to be worth bothering with?
>
> Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
> fragmentation of development.
Why? Dual licensing something under the GPL and some other license is
the same in this respect with licensing something under the XFree86 license
or some other highly permissive license. Sure, any one can produce a GPL
only fork (with XFree86 or GPL/Something), but I've never heard of it
happening. Perl (Artistic/GPL) doesn't seem to have fragmented development.
In real life, the vast majority of the people will contribute the patches back
under both licenses. It seems doubtful that even if QT was released QPL/GPL,
that there would be any really major work done on a GPL-only version, even with
the number of QT/TT haters out there.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
The hell that is supposedly out there could be no worse than
the hell that is sometimes seen in here.
Reply to: