| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPL and private contractsGPL and private contractsPosted Mar 24, 2007 13:59 UTC (Sat) by vmole (guest, #111)In reply to: GPL and private contracts by giraffedata Parent article: The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)
The GPL is special in its effect on downstream copiers because it's very rare for licenses to *allow* downstream copiers.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL and private contracts Posted Mar 24, 2007 17:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The GPL is special in its effect on downstream copiers because it's very rare for licenses to *allow* downstream copiers. The license doesn't allow downstream copiers, but the copyright owner does, by issuing additional licenses to them. Same for GPL and non-GPL. But look at what the "stream" is: The stream is the modification of the software. A writes code; B adds stuff to it and passes it on to C, C does the same to D. With non-GPL, A insists on royalties for the C-D copy, but otherwise A usually doesn't care what the deal between C and D is.
GPL and private contracts Posted Mar 24, 2007 18:09 UTC (Sat) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] > With non-GPL, A insists on royalties for the C-D copy, but otherwise A usually doesn't care what the deal between C and D is.
With commercial code, I've never seen that kind of chain relationship, where B had full rights to become a competitor to A. If it's a value-add chain, where each step adds more stuff, A's not giving up any rights. They insist on being paid at each step of the way, and remain involved and active throughout the chain. If I buy a custom database written on Oracle, Oracle gets paid (a lot!) for the database instance I'm running, and that's above and beyond whatever I pay for the custom database code.
With GPL, A insists on being paid by making sure that all downstream users have the same rights to all code that was added... including, likely, him or herself. The payment terms are "freedom and code" instead of money. B through D voluntarily give up rights in either GPL or non-GPL scenarios. With non-GPL code, they cannot freely make copies and must, generally, pay per running instance. With GPL code, they don't have to pay, but have to give away any improvements they make along with their improved binaries. In general, B through D give up fewer rights under the GPL than they do with regular copyright, but they always give some up.
Commercial A, as recompense, gets money. GPL A probably gets access to downstream code improvements. That's not a GPL requirement, but in practice, that's usually what happens.
Ultimately, there's little difference. Both As are still getting paid. As B through D, you're buying either codebase, you're just paying differently.
As GPL B through D, you're getting a great deal; you can set yourself up as a full competitor to anyone else in the chain. You're not hostage to anyone's code, and in exchange, you can't hold anyone else hostage. It's a pretty sweet deal, overall. It's why the GPL prospers.
TANSTAAFL. If you want good code, you usually have to pay for it. Fortunately, the GPL is not particularly onerous.... unless you intend to enslave your customers instead of serving them.
|
|
||||||||||||