On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Holm, Mark wrote:
In that respect, the MS license is actually somewhat freer. So long as you
are willing to negotiate with MS for their cut of your pie, you are able to
make for profit apps containing their stuff. If you give your app away, you
are covered by the already existing free license, just like the GPL.
With GPL, you must give away the source to derived works only if you are not
the copyright owner and cannot negotiate a deal with the copyright owner - just
like M$. Many GPL works, that are original and nor derived, offer a dual
license. You can get the free source with GPL - or buy a commercial
license so you don't have to provide source for your contributions.
Effectively, you pay either with cash, or with your contributions for
derived works (should you wish to distribute the derived work).
If you never exercise the option, under the MS license, of charging for your
software, you don't break the GPL. If you do exercise it, you break both
licenses, but MS gives you the option of negotiating a commercial license.
GPL doesn't. If you stay within the terms of GPL, you will never break the
basic terms of the Microsoft license. (There may be problems on the fringes,
but the basics are compatible.)
Copyright owners have always had the option to offer both a commercial
and a GPL license. Do I detect FUD?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.