Re: [SLUG] Re: Copyright assignment + the GPL [Was: Streaming media servers]

[QuantumG <qg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

> Which is the case, even if the copyright owner distributes the software
> under another license.
>  

If they distribute exactly the same code under another license.  They 
hardly ever do this because the user has no interest in getting 
something under a proprietary license if they can get the same thing 
under a liberal license.  What they do is distribute the same code with 
proprietary extensions.  The user has the choice, use the code available 
under a liberal license and do without the features, or give up their 
freedom for the features that are only available under the proprietary 
license.  This is exactly what RealNetworks is doing with Helix. 

> No, complete lack of software freedom inspired the creation of copyleft
> licenses, not sensible business models built upon the foundations of
> software freedom.
>  

The BSD licenses were around long before the GPL was drafted.  RMS 
rejected the BSD because it failed to prevent this kind of proprietary 
forking.  At least that's my understanding of it.

> The community benefits *more* from the availability of the software, source
> and commitment of the organisation that owns its copyright than it would if
> the source were closed.
>  
But that's not the argument.  The argument is whether or not the 
community would benefit more from having someone like RealNetworks not 
demand copyright assignment.  I believe they would because any 
extensions RealNetworks makes to the work of contributors will remain free.

I'm sure the situation with RealNetworks is a lot more complicated than 
it appears.  For example, I'm sure their proprietary product includes 
some licensed technology that they obviously have no permission to 
integrate into the open source distribution.  On the other hand, they 
list things such as Ad-Serving Support and Live File Archiving as a 
features that is only in the proprietary version.  I have no idea what 
they entail, but I can imagine that people would want this and be 
willing to fore-go their freedom to get it. 

Suppose I wasn't happy with RealNetwork's ad-serving.. maybe my 
customers were complaining that the ads take up too much bandwidth or 
something.  I can't fix that.  Well boo-hoo, I gave up my freedom to get 
that silly feature so it's my own problem.  Say I decide to do something 
about it and write an ad-serving extension for the open source 
distribution.  Are RealNetworks going to accept my patch?  Presumably 
not.  That's a terrible situation for the community to be in.

Trent