On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:05:45PM -0300, Wilbern Cobb wrote:
> > Vim is free, open-source, etc. It's more free than GPL, since I can
> > permit companies to use Vim for special purposes. The freedom to sell
> > software should also not be underestimated (that's the freedom the
> > author has). GPL is very bad in that perspective, since requiring
> > distribution of changed source code indirectly prohibits making money.
> >
> > I've been thinking of a GPL++ license, which makes this very clear:
> > Allow distribution of (un)modified sources to the public under GPL, and
> > allow other ways of distribution after negotiation with the author (or
> > representative). Thus it would be possible to let HP use a modified
> > version of Vim in their IDE if they pay me for it. That's true freedom
> > from my perspective.
In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You
want for other people to give you patches -- for free! -- but you
be able to sell licensing terms to the entire codebase.
I guess I won't be bothering to use your editor any time soon.
--
David Terrell | "the only part about medicinal marijuana that
Prime Minister, Nebcorp | bothers me is that, when I started chemo, all of
dbt@meat.net | my children and grandchildren told me they could
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | get some for me if I needed it." -mrw's grandfather
|