🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
news:UJTl4oHpvu5F092yn@visi.com...
> Here in comp.os.os2.utilities, "J. Clarke" <nospam@nospam.nospam>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >So if you want to sell your device driver commercially, and it contains
> >portions of code that are GPL protected, then the first person to buy
> >your device driver can then give it away gratis and what happens to your
> >market?
>
> Dishonest people will distribute the drivers anyway regardless of the
> availability of the source.

GPL covers more than availability of source.  GPL for most code other than
development tools says that you can't prevent your customer from giving it
away either.  Device drivers are operating system components, not
development tools.  As for dishonest people giving it away anyway, if they
do you have a legal mechanism for recovering damages, or if you don't want
to recover damages then you can just file a complaint with the Justice
Department and sooner or later Janet Reno's Jackbooted Thugs (TM) will tend
to the matter courtesy of your tax dollars.

> If you make it clear that there is some clear benefit to registering
> the software (bug fixes not othrewise released publically, or some
> other form of support), then you'll still have a clientele who will be
> willing to pay for the software.

How do you prevent them from being posted publicly?  And how much support is
a frigging OS/2 device driver for a sound board going to need, given that
people who use OS/2 are as a group rather more technically capable than most
vendors' first tier and many vendors' second tier tech support.

> BTW, some of us would be more likely to pay for it simply BECAUSE it's
> released as an open source product.

Why would you pay for something that you may legally obtain for free?

--

---

--- John

Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net