[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licensing question



On 22 Feb 1999, John Hasler wrote:

> The source code *isn't* under their control.  You still have it and are
> free to distribute it without their permission.  They have only a GPL copy.

THEIR COPY of the source is under their control. If they provide a third
party with a binary, they will also have to provide the source code.

> 
> > Commercial software can (and has been) provided under GPL for no other
> > reason than to PREVENT the distribution of the binary by using the source
> > requirement as a "poison pill".
> 
> Where is the poison?

Because if they try to sell SuperCahsier E-Commerce Solutions to people
they will also have to provide them with the source code ... which means
that the purchaser can in turn resell it at a lower cost. As long as they
are selling the SERVICE they are safe. As soon as they sell the SOFTWARE
they loose control over what happens to the copy they sold. It gives them
an incentive NOT to sell the software if they are making enough money on
providing the service.

Let me give a different example.  Imagine the world is dark and you have
discovered a way to make candles. I come to you with the idea that I want
to use your candles to charge people $1 per hour to read by candlelight.
You agree BUT you sell me the method for making candles with the
stiplation that if I ever give a candle to anyone else, I must also give
them the method for making candles.

I am the only one in town with a reading candle and business is good.
Someone comes to me and asks for candles so they may install them in their
library. They offer to pay me a good price for them. I now have a dilema.
If I give them a candle, I must also give them the method of making
candles and they can potentially resell or give away that method killing
my business. So I have to refuse to give them a candle if I want to keep
my reading by candlelight business as lucrative as it is.

The original owner of the candle has prevented me from taking additional
advantage of his invention without damaging myself in the long term.




Reply to: