Ugly Huge BSD Monster

[Rahul Siddharthan]

Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:03 AM 9/3/2003, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> >To get back to the original example: Qt?  It's been entirely developed
> >by Troll Tech, at certainly not "marginal" cost, and though they started
> >off with a not-quite-free licence, they're doing fine with a
> >GPL+commercial dual-licensing system now.
> 
> No, they're not "doing fine;" they're just not out of business yet.

So let's talk when they're out of business, ok?  That's not happening
today.

> >An older example, as I said, is ghostscript, whose cost isn't "marginal"
> >either; but the comparison is not quite the same, since they released
> >GPL versions a year after their commercial/AFPL versions.  Nevertheless,
> >it is a successful model using the GPL.
> 
> Wrong again. Deutsch hasn't gotten a Postscript consulting contract in
> years. 

That's because he handed over maintainership to ArtOfCode
(http://www.artofcode.com) in 2000.

For those interested in facts rather than polemics, here's an
interview with Peter Deutsch from 1998 where he talks about his work
and earning a living, among other things.

http://devlinux.org/deutsch-interview.html  

His problem with the GPL:

    The GPL takes the point of view that it rewards cooperation by making
   the work done cooperatively available freely to anyone who is willing
   to play by those rules, but it does not draw a hard line that prevents
   that work from also being used in a way that makes money for other
   people who weren't involved in its creation.

   [ie, it's not "anti-commercial" *enough*.  A bit later,]

STIG      The GPL doesn't address the issue of making money for people
   who create and maintain GPLed works. It's just that, de facto, if you
   hold the copyright then you don't have to use the GPL and that's what
   you've done with Ghostscript.

PETER   That's correct. And as far as I know, I am the first person,
   and so far perhaps the only substantial person, who has taken
   advantage of that.  [this was 1998, before Troll Tech & others]

   As you recall, I promised Stallman that I would continue to distribute
   Ghostscript with the GNU license. But I saw a number of companies
   bundling Ghostscript with commercial products while just barely
   complying with the letter of the GNU license, so I decided that I did
   not want to make Ghostscript as available for commercial distribution
   as it would be with the GNU license.

   And so I am now continuing to distribute Ghostscript with the GNU
   license, but about two revisions back from the version with the
   Aladdin license. The latest version is now always called Aladdin
   Ghostscript instead of GNU Ghostscript, and is released with the
   Aladdin Free Public License.