From: Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
To: Doug Kaufman <dkaufman AT rahul DOT net>
Cc: watt-32 AT yahoogroups DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [watt-32] Re: License status of WATT-32
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:36:19 +0100
Message-ID: <2bckkts4fmgj8a6s0sj6ckme97e3lle20v@4ax.com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010709192728 DOT 9759C-100000 AT is> <Pine DOT BSF DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0107091222480 DOT 37273-100000 AT yellow DOT rahul DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107091222480.37273-100000@yellow.rahul.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id SAA25956
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Erick Engelke <erick AT engmail DOT uwaterloo DOT ca> wrote:

> 
> It has come to my attention that some people feel confined by the
> restrictions on WATTCP and the derivative WATT-32 networking libraries.

Far be it from me to preach what you should do with something which you
have put considerable effort in to.  It's your code and you are
_perfectly_ entitled to do with it as you wish.  I only want to comment
on what you say about the GPL model.

> I never intended to make people uncomfortable using my libraries in their
> programs, or uncomfortable distributing these programs on CD or FTP sites.
> Please feel free to do so.

The problem is that people are not free to do so, when porting Free
software released under the GPL.

> I have not made the software GPL or BSD licensed, because I don't believe
> in these models.  My problem is that some people fiddle slightly with the
> software and then try to sell it for a large markup, and don't filter any
> of that money back to the people who wrote and support the code. 

It's true that with either GPL or BSD licenses, a third party could try
to sell the library on without returning any of the profit to the author.

But the GPL would require the full source, including changes, to be made
freely available, which severely limits any markup they can claim.  And
any changes, which could include bug fixes or feature additions, are
there available to be re-used in the original library if so desired.

In addition, by releasing under the GPL (rather than the LGPL) any
software which uses the library must be distributed with full source
under the same terms.  This makes it not so attractive as a toolkit for
commercial developers who want to release closed source products.

So, IMVHO, the GPL does what you want.  It permits people to use the
library in free software, and it limits the ability of others to freeload
on your efforts and make big bucks without also adding value.