| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: broyds_-at-_home.com (Bill Royds)
Date: 20 Aug 2000 14:27:48 -0400
"Russell McOrmond" <russell@flora.ottawa.on.ca> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10008181122330.10568-100000@calcutta.flora.ottawa.on.ca...
<snip>
> Since we didn't want to discourage commercial companies from
> redistributing PHP along with their PHP-based applications; And, since we
> wanted to give commercial companies the ability to contribute to PHP
> (almost all commercial companies cannot contribute code to GPL'd software,
> for legal reasons) - we've decided to drop the GPL altogether.
>
> [RWM: This the 'position piece', and seems to be based on a common
> misunderstanding of the english language, equating 'Commercial Companies'
> with 'Proprietary Software Companies'. While it is true that one cannot
> contribute proprietary code to GPL'd software {Which would make this
> derivative work proprietary, one of the things that the GPL protects
> against if one wants such protection}, it does not in any way restrict
> for-profit commercial companies from contributing non-proprietary code.
> The comment in round-brackets, taken with a proper use of the language, is
> false]
>
The commercial ADVANTAGE of the GPL is the fact that a contributor gets to use extensions of his/.her software.
Company A adds a module for feature X. Company B extends X to include features. Company A also gets to use these features and extend even further.
This is why the GPL helps to stop forking and to advance development. The GPL IS restrictive in that it forces a developer to share her extensions but the result is better software for all.
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
|
(USA) (Canada) |
|