From: Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: License status of WATT-32
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:27:38 +0100
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <albkktk7vckdbjkgndbt0a1vl5dmdrirs0@4ax.com>
References: <Pine DOT BSF DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0107090734510 DOT 4634-100000 AT yellow DOT rahul DOT net> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10107091041020 DOT 2914-100000 AT engmail DOT uwaterloo DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-110.berkelium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 994717672 14720 62.136.68.110 (9 Jul 2001 22:27:52 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jul 2001 22:27:52 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
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.