<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>On 25-02-2017 14:44, Paul Boddie wrote:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">...this is almost
like asking for business advice
<br>
</blockquote>
Don't get me wrong. It is not my goal to make money. My goal is to
make free software libraries.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">You have to remember
that Free Software is all about end-user empowerment. If
<br>
a user gets a binary that gives them none of the privileges of
Free Software
<br>
then it doesn't matter in practice what went into making that
software: they
<br>
are being denied the ability to participate in controlling what
that software
<br>
- the actual thing they obtained, not part of it - actually is or
does.
<br>
<br>
Where a scheme advocates putting proprietary software in front of
users, it is
<br>
not going to get the support of the FSF, because even the LGPL is
effectively
<br>
a barely palatable concession to the idea that Free Software might
be used in
<br>
proprietary software under certain circumstances. I don't think
you should
<br>
expect the FSFE to take a different position.
<br>
</blockquote>
That's the nature of a software library. It can be used in many
different contexts - free as well as proprietary.
<br>
If a company wants to make a piece of proprietary software for a
specific purpose then they will do so no matter what. If they can't
use my GPL library they will find another way. It is not realistic
that we can coerce them to make their software free if their
business is to sell software. But we can make them contribute to
funding free software if this is cheaper for them than making their
own library from scratch. My project doesn't need any funding, so
the money can go to some other free software projects (which might
ultimately outcompete some proprietary software).
<br>
<br>
The dual license system for software libraries that I am proposing
will serve two purposes:
<br>
1. It gives open source projects that use the library an advantage
over proprietary projects using the same library.
<br>
2. It generates a revenue that may be used for funding other free
software projects.
<br>
<br>
If a library uses GPL only, it will make an incentive for somebody
else to make a proprietary alternative to the library (which will
possibly be so similar to the free code that we would have a nasty
battle over possible copyright violation).
<br>
<br>
If we use a more permissive license (Apache or BSD) then we will
allow proprietary code makers to free ride and make money on our
open source work without contributing anything in return.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">I think that more
attention should be given to funding mechanisms for Free
<br>
Software.
<br>
</blockquote>
This is indeed what I am proposing. The problem is that we need an
organization to handle the money.
<br>
<br>
I think this is an unresolved issue in the open source movement. How
do we deal with software libraries and other pieces of code that can
be reused in proprietary software (and is so valuable that private
companies will pay for it).
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">For what it's worth,
you could look at what existing businesses have done in
<br>
this area already. There have been several companies that have
offered dual-
<br>
licensing schemes, and some of them may even have offered
something resembling
<br>
what you are trying to achieve.
<br>
</blockquote>
But I don't want to make a company - I just want to make code <span
class="moz-smiley-s1" title=":-)"></span>
<br>
<br>
/Agner
<br>
</body>
</html>