[computer-go] OT: OS licenses

[Darren Cook]

> Below I've quoted part of the GPL that supports my statements.  I think
> the whole thing is mirky, and I agree with Mark, I would not distribute
> my non-GPL program with any GPL software. 

This kind of confusion is one of the problems with GPL. The more clauses
a license has the more chance you need to ask a lawyer what it means,
which increases the chance people won't bother.

> If your intention is to let people use it as a component, then why not
> just make it LGPL?  This avoids all these issues...

LGPL is still too restrictive for most software libraries (IMHO). I'll
give an example as it is a common one for me: I have a client who wants
to build some application. There is an open source library that does
much of what they need. So they pay me to: 1. add the functions they
need to this open source library; 2. write custom code to integrate with
their legacy apps/data/whatever.

An important part of this is that the whole of my fee is marked down in
their accounts as the value of the asset of the custom code. (Even
though sometimes 90% of my time was spent expanding the open source
library.)

If the open source library license is anything other than BSD-like this
will not work: they will have to release their custom code as well. I.e.
business secrets, an asset. Naturally this will not happen: another
library (perhaps needing more work) will be chosen or the wheel will be
reinvented.

The open source library misses out on a significant contribution. The
client has to pay more. Everyone loses.

Darren

P.S. I marked this as off-topic, but the same thing is happening here.
If GoGUI was BSD instead of GPL Mark would do two things:
  1. Make useful contributions
  2. Embed it in a future commercial project and make money from it.

If I was the author, the pleasure of 1 far exceeds the "pain" of 2.