> The GPL promptly makes all my hard work in writing the software
> valueless (certainly in terms of being able to extract an income
> stream). You're imposing your "software wants to be free" ethic on
> me, and not respecting my "the labourer is worthy of his hire"
I believe you may be confusing "free as in freedom" with "free as in
beer". After 25 or so years it is settled that businesses can extract
income streams from GPL-licensed software.
> Okay, that obviously means I don't buy in to *hard* copyleft, but
> your attitude is in the "GPL or die" camp.
> And you're using copyleft
> to enforce stuff that is outside the realm of copyright, namely you
> are (in practice) forrbidding copyright licencing agreements.
No, I'm essentially saying 'if you use a strong copyleft license for
some software you write, then if you also want to use a proprietary
license for derivative works of that software, give everyone else the
right to similarly use a proprietary license for their derivative
works". It's an equality principle. Nothing is forbidden; quite the
opposite. You are saying that it is okay for a company to have the
sole right to do proprietary licensing of a GPL codebase -- that is
obviously forbidding GPL licensees from entering into proprietary
copyright licensing agreements covering *their* derivative works.
> At the end of the day, if I am sole copyright holder (or have a
> licence from contributors that says I can) and distribute both
> proprietary and GPL versions, then those other contributors know up
> front what they're letting themselves in for.
It's not the contributors I'm concerned about here, primarily, though
one problem with the model you describe is it tends to discourage
> Actually, I have seen at first hand what happens when a company
> tries to convert their product into a dual-licence proprietary/GPL
> state. Firstly, they would never have touched your licence in a
> month of sundays.