🚀 go-pugleaf

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
 > However, I can see an arrangement where a software vendor is
 > allowed to hoard and sell a derivative of a GPL'd program
 > for x years.  At the end of x years, source for all
 > distributed derived works would have to be distributed under
 > the terms of the GPL.  The value of x would be negotiated as
 > part of the terms of the agreement.  This could be
 > beneficial for both the FSF and the software vendor.

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
 > You can see that?  And yet I heard not one positive response to
 > my suggestion of requiring feeding changes back to the author.

I don't remember the particulars of your proposal so it is likely
that I missed it.  Lacking the particulars I can't really say
whether I would agree, but it sounds pretty good if the changes
get back to the author within a reasonable time frame (the
working definition of "reasonable" would have to be negotiated.),
and the changes would have to be redistributible.