[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pygame] pygame for commercial use
On Nov 4, 2004, at 19:52, Michael wrote:
The GPL doesn't keep others from stealing your work. Under the GPL,
Well, software is information and doesn't really require any
resources to duplicate and redistribute (electronically). That said,
even though I make most of my money from software and software
services, I do believe in open source (just not the FSF kind, I find
*GPL to be more of a hassle than most of the alternatives).
But the information takes resources to create. Which is why I like to
charge for the creation and not bother trying to limit the
distribution to much. (I'll disagree and say that the GPL is the best
license because it keeps others from stealing your work.) Information
wants to be free but if you want to keep finding new information
running around free then you should cough up some cash now and then.
- modify the software and keep it to yourself or your company
- modify the software and distribute it to selected people (who may
then also redistribute, but if they are paying for it they probably
The only condition that makes any promise to the author and/or original
project is that it (and anything it touches) must be distributed under
the same license.
The GPL is counter-productive in many cases because using the GPL
limits what software you may interoperate with (the linking clause), it
causes logistical issues (the source must be available for any
release), and it's a legal hassle. The LGPL is a lot more palatable,
but can still be a hassle.
It's a lot easier to just stick to BSD/MIT/Apache/PSF/etc. style
licenses, where you can do whatever you need to do without getting in
the way of any developer or corporation who may be interested in using
your the software in some way. You don't see people running around
"stealing" stuff like Python and Apache. So what if some company
decides to embed Python or use the Apache Portable Runtime in their
closed source commercial product? Chances are, they are just using it
as it is meant to be used, without any modifications. And if they do
make meaningful modifications to the open source software, they'd
probably send the changes upstream anyway to lessen their maintenance
overhead, if not for altruistic reasons.