Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!noatun.mjolner.dk!mail-to-news
From: Arne Hueggenberg <zalaster@nef.wh.uni-dortmund.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta
Subject: Re: Mjolner 5.2.2, Bravo & praise.
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:28:29 +0200
Organization: Posted to comp.lang.beta by a mailtonews script
Lines: 50
Sender: lbr@mjolner.dk
Approved: mailtonews@cs.au.dk
Message-ID: <a9hjbg$joq$1@news.net.uni-c.dk>
References: <002c01c1e49f$88a19b70$6501a8c0@server> <3CBAFBA9.5AD4FB36@skynet.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bifrost.mjolner.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:26:24 +0000 (UTC)
Mailing-List: contact usergroup-help@mjolner.dk; run by ezmlm
In-Reply-To: <3CBAFBA9.5AD4FB36@skynet.be>
Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.beta:13200

On Monday 15 April 2002 18:11, you wrote:
> But I can well imagine two license forms, this is a good idea from Borland
> and others: As versions get old, put them into GPL or other free license,
> to keep the language alive in the Free Software community.
> Always keep a free version like now, but think about creating a
> 'Professional Edition' - one that pays the bills. When I start to make
> money using Beta, then I would want some of that to get back into the
> development of Beta itself - for example: Some people keep Linux versions
> of software free, because of Linux' status in the academic world, but have
> people pay for windows versions.
>
> The way it is now, I would recommend this last way, because the FSF people
> are alread in 'negative mode'  because "we  don't get the source, so its
> not free".
> So, release the source as GPL for, say version 5.1, rename it to
> Mjolnzilla(Midgardsormen?) or something - that keeps the GNU community
> happy, and it will be up to them to show what they can do with it - they
> will no longer be able to say that  'this is not free software' - then make
> people pay for Windows-versions, because Windows-people are used to paying
> anyway, and nobody uses Windows for his/her own pleasure, I hope?
> That is one improvement I could imagine for the license, no reason to keep
> it free if you don't get it branded as 'free', and what you no longer need,
> give it away completely for the benefit of all, ourselves included.
> Remember that only Beta-interested people will be reading the source, and
> no Beta people would ever dream of trying to rip off Mjolner in any way
> whatsoever, I hope? Any progress would go right back to Mjolner, as soon as
> it is stable it can be part of a 'Professional' package.

Actually, publishing old Versions Under the GPL is not so terrific an Idea.
Leaving the Free Software Ethics out of the Discussion and coming from the 
Open Source Angle publishing this would counteract most of the benefits one 
could hope to garner from a move like this. Bugfixes users of the old version 
might develop might already have been developed for the 'Commercial Verison' 
thus leading to duplication of effort. Additinal libraries developed for the 
old version might not work with the 'Commercial Version', etc

A more reasonable approach would be to pursue a dual licensing scheme like 
the Trolls did with QT.
They are offering QT under GPL/QPL as well as a commercial license.
So those of us who want to develop free software can do so happily and 
unencumbered, and those who still think the commercial model of software 
development has merit can do so under well understood rules.
And in a case like this most contributors have no propblems with assigning 
the copyright to patches to the entity behinf the project (mjolner in this 
case) thus enabling them to put the patches into the commercial version too.

> Atle

-- 
Arne 'zal' Hueggenberg <zalaster@nef.wh.uni-dortmund.de>