Re: GPL v3? Other license options?

[John Locke <..hidden..>]

Decibel! wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 11:26:34AM -0700, John Locke wrote:
>   
>> As a commercial company, I prefer releasing code under the GPL instead
>> of the LGPL (or the Apache or the BSD licenses, etc), simply because it
>> prevents competitors from taking my code, extending it, and
>> commercializing it without distributing their enhancements. The GPL
>> keeps the playing field level, prevents my code from being unfairly used
>> against me. As far as which version, I don't know enough about v3 to
>> make an informed decision, so we're sticking to v2 for the time being.
>>     
>
> I view that argument as a variation on security through obscurity. If
> another company can take code that you've written and do a better job of
> selling it than you can then the problem isn't with them, or the
> license... it's with your company.
>   
>   
Well, the GPL doesn't prevent exactly that from happening. In fact, the
GPL makes the playing field level so that those who can provide the best
service can compete the best. I would argue that it keeps all the
vendors honest--if your competitor can take your code, close it up, and
sell it on the marketplace as "new and improved," enhanced with an NSA
spy plugin nobody else knows about.... The "unfairly" word in my quote
is crucial here. If you compete with me on a GPL-leveled playing field
and win, more power to you. (Just like LSMB). If the fork then starts
putting secret stuff and preventing other forks, now that's no longer
fair to the original authors or the community as a whole. That's the
point I was trying to make...

Cheers,

-- 
John Locke
"Open Source Solutions for Small Business Problems"
published by Charles River Media, June 2004
http://www.freelock.com