Re: [pygame] pygame for commercial use

[Bob Ippolito <bob@redivi.com>]

On Nov 4, 2004, at 19:52, Michael wrote:

> > 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.
The GPL doesn't keep others from stealing your work.  Under the GPL, 
you may:
- 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 
won't)

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.

-bob