Kevin Brown wrote:

> This is why I'm responding.  It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
> like.  It's 100% _POSSIBLE_.  It's easy to do.  Dual licensing even fits in
> the GPL.  Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
> only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
> so.  So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
> a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
> software?"  Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
> controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
> in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.

Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software.  Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF.  In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.


> Once they've bought
> my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> heart's content.  If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> believe we deserve a cut.

How far down the chain do you think this works?  Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word?  The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.

Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.

As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist.  Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money.  If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
bother using free software?

Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
that of royalties.

The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective.  I support it fully,
many in the ruby community do not.  This is why you're free to use a
non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
everyone happy.

<insult>

Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.

</insult>