Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DVD-PL license feedback

[Patrick]

So what could happen to someone trying to sell GPL code:

1)A competitor in your enforcement zone could fork it but keep it GPL
2)A competitor outside of your enforcement zone could fork it into 
proprietary code
3)End users in your enforcement zone could post it on the net for free 
and all would-be customers could download it
4)End users outside of your enforcement zone could post it with the same 
result as #3

With my small DVD revision I still expect all of these things to happen 
with the possible exception of #3. I am not concerned about it as long 
as this takes months or years to happen and DVD only redistribution 
might make that possible. This will give me time to create a newer 
revision that is still marketable with the older one posted on the net.

" And with that you also slow who it can benefit."

Yes and no. The scientific instrument industry is 16 billion dollars and 
is software driven. There is absolutely no free software being used in 
labs at all, just licensed proprietary code and "pirated" proprietary 
code. Even a license that was second best to the GPL would have a huge 
benefit but it won't happen if it can't generate income for daytime coding.


Does anyone have any opinions about:
1)whether this license could be FSF approved
2)Would be GPL compatible
3)If there is a license like this already
4)Could forked LGPL/BSD/MIT etc code be used with this license.

Thanks

> But if we're talking about people that aren't inclined to follow the license
> what's to stop said person from distributing it over the internet anyway? In
> those cases it makes no difference to them what your license says anyway.

I am sure that this will eventually happen
> What would your plan be in those cases where someone on the other side of the
> planet starts to distribute it over the internet?
>
> > I never want my software to become proprietary
> > GPL, the software is never proprietary.
> > Competitors will just fork the code and roll it into proprietary software.
> Your whole argument shows a lack of understanding how the GPL works, I think,
> unless you mean that the people that make your software proprietary are doing
> so even though the GPL is designed to prevent that? In those cases the only
> thing keeping the software free is license enforcement.
>
> Or, think of it this way: A program licensed under the GPL without any license
> enforcement is identical to a program licensed under Apache 2.0.

I think the best solution is to slow the software's movement