🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul1.190608.24178@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>And others say this:
>
>We would be much happier if the licence (and the LGPL) made some
>explicit reference to people who develop specialized software systems
>which are sufficiently specialized that only a handful of copies will
>ever exist, and stopped assuming that everyone who writes software
>works either for a computer vendor or general purpose software
>company.

Huh?!  I am really puzzled by this.

If your market niche is _so_ specialized that you will only sell one copy
then you will not lose any money by giving the source code along with
the binaries (GPL or LGPL).

Even when selling just a "handful" [five or less] you will not be losing
revenue for yourself by releasing your object modules (LGPL).  No one will
try to decompile your object modules unless there is a *big* gain for them.
And there will not be such a gain for a program for which only a "handful"
of copies exists.

If you are talking about selling software that includes large chunks of FSF
code then, whether or not you are selling one or a thousand copies, you _OWE_
the FSF and all the programmers who contribute to the FSF effort large
chunks of money.  Instead of money, they only ask for the rights to use your
code as your used theirs.  What could be more fair?

If you really want to sell software that includes _modules_ of FSF code then
do a little work and put the FSF code into a a set of library routines.
Contact the FSF and see if they are willing to release the code under the LGPL.
If they are then just release the library (and source code to the library)
and your object modules.  You are now back to using the LGPL.

If you are not using chunks of FSF code, and you are not using FSF libraries,
then there is no requirement for you to place your software under a GPL.

I don't see how changing the GPL or LGPL will help you or the FSF.
But, I am curious, how would you have the FSF word this *new* part of the GPL?

	"Anyone may sell up to 5 copies of software.  After selling 5 or
	 more copies of software, they must release the code to anyone,
	 including former customers for up to 2 years from the date of
	 sale of the fifth copy.  They must also make best effort to
	 contact all customers to notify them of the availability of the
	 source code."

Of course, how will you know if your copy of GCC 2.07.23XYZ from XYZ Corp. is
really any different from GCC 2.07.54PDQ from PDQ, Inc. until you see the
code?

How do you stop a company from selling four copies, making a minor change to
the software (bugfix) and then selling four copies of this *new* software,
making a minor change, ad infinitum?

Curious,
Aydin Edguer