RAYMOND proprietary forks:
Is open-source development a more efficient system of software production than the closed-source system? I think the answer is probably “yes”, and that it follows the GNU GPL is probably doing us more harm than good
If I choose the GPL, I can make you pay me for permission to make a proprietary fork. If I choose a permissive license, I can’t make you pay up. Seems like in that case, the GPL is the economically superior license . Doesn’t the GPL technically forbid proprietary forks? Even if it doesn’t, it seems to me that one person getting payouts to make a proprietary fork is a violation of the spirit and intent of everything the Free Software stands for. Given the internet uproars that tend to happen when things like that occur, i’d expect a proprietary fork bribe would result in a fractured community, a stagnant project and destroyed reputations. NOTES: SO Where IS the fairness? the gpl copyright holder can take all these code commits back which they don't have to
- publish and license it to the compnay nooboyd knosws about . In other words the GPL can emulate the BSD
Consider, for example, Great Britain's "right" to control Hong Kong, Kowloon, and the New Territories. It is difficult to explain Communist China's willingness to respect that right on legal grounds, given that, from the Maoist standpoint, neither the government of Britain nor previous, non-communist governments with which it had signed agreements were entities entitled to any moral respect. It seems equally difficult to explain it on legal grounds, given the general weakness of international law and the fact that for part of the period in question Great Britain (as a member state of the United Nations) was at war with China. An alternative explanation—that the Chinese government believed that British occupation of Hong Kong was in its own interest—seems inconsistent with the Chinese failure to renew the lease on the New Territories, due to expire in 1997.