[Asterisk-Users] GPL thoughts

[Jim Van Meggelen]

asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com wrote:
>>> What is with that thought?
>> 
>> Technically you could probably make something like that work, but I
>> would think you'd scare away a lot of customers with such a scheme.
>> If they want to get locked into a
>> "you-don't-really-own-your-software-we-do" kind of licensing model,
>> why wouldn't they just go to one of the big-name manufacturers?
> 
> Just a minor point, even under the GPL, they don't own the
> software.  They merely have a license granting terms under
> which it may be used.  The only way to own the software is to
> go buy the rights from whoever wrote it.

Good point. The pros and cons of various licensing schemes can make for
interesting discussions. Where I was going, I suppose, was that I feel
that the strength of Asterisk comes from its open-source philosophy.
Trying to find ways to lock it down under a restrictive model may add
challenges to the process of selling it, because now you've lost a
differentiator between yourself and the big guys.

It is often difficult to see the value in open-sourcing software,
because it can be seen as giving away your work. The challenge, I
suppose, lies in realizing the value of goodwill in the growth of a
business.

Would Digium be as successful if they had locked their software down
under a closed model? Would Asterisk?

Open source has hard-dollar benefits, but the soft-dollar benefits
(which are so much more difficult to measure) are probably the most
significant. Making strategic decisions based on soft-dollar benefits
are very difficult to justify The larger -- and therefore more
bureaucratic -- the company, the less likely something with primarily
soft-dollar benefits will be approved. 

Red Hat grew due to their open philosophy. Now that they've closed
things up, the community is looking elsewhere. Will Red Had be a
dominant force five years from now? It'll be interesting to see how that
plays out.

> Of course, compared to the average software license agreement
> from M$ or whoever, the terms of the GPL are much less
> restrictive (although there are even less restrictive tiers
> of licensing, such as the minimalistic
> BSD license, and then public domain, which isn't even a license at
> all). 

The BSD license and GPL share many ideals, one of which is that
distribution of source code will tend to produce the best software.

That is the essense of my arguments for sharing knowledge with the
community.