From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 17 23:39:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ptd.net (mail2.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42CA437B43C for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27388 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2000 06:39:45 -0000 Received: from du06.cli.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) (204.186.33.6) by mail.ptd.net with SMTP; 18 Aug 2000 06:39:45 -0000 Message-ID: <399CDA16.E14E80C9@mail.ptd.net> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:39:18 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" Organization: None X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: Rahul Siddharthan , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sun's web site References: <20000816221119.B7276@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <4.3.2.7.2.20000817232139.04cf0840@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass wrote: > > At 12:07 PM 8/17/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote: > > >Companies probably prefer BSD (meaning the license) to GPL when they are > >using other people's code, but when they are opening their own code, the > >might well prefer GPL. Managment is probably worried that if they use > >BSD on their code, some other company might make a profit from it, which > >would get management in trouble with their stockholders for essentially > >giving away a valuable asset. If they use GPL however, then they are > >guaranteed that they will be able to use whatever modifications the > >other company is using to make its profit. > > This is short-sighted thinking. The fact is that once they put their > code under the GPL, they can NEVER make a profit from it even though they > still hold the copyright. The GPL's "poison pill" works as much against > them as against competitors. If they are giving away their source, they probably aren't planning on making much of a profit from it any more. If they use the GPL, they can be pretty sure that no one else will make one, either. Management has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If they give away their source, and some other company makes a killing with it, management has breached that duty. But if they use the GPL, it is very unlikely that any other company will make that killing, and management will be in the clear. Perhaps they could have made a lot of money by keeping the source closed, but no one will ever really know. In other words, using the GPL lets management cover their posteriors if they decide to open their source. I am not advocating this, but just describing what I think goes through some people's minds. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message