From: Jason Green To: Doug Kaufman 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: In-Reply-To: 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 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.