3 ms·

I found his reasoning very clear. "Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code releases it to the public under a free software license, then

I found his reasoning very clear. "Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code releases it to the public under a free software license, then lets customers pay for permission to use the same code under different terms, for instance allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications." Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. He goes to on further detail what you might find confusing: "We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something crucially different: proprietary extensions or proprietary versions of a free program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one company, are different issues. In selling exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available to the general public as free software. An extension or a modified version that is only available under a proprietary license is proprietary software, pure and simple, and no better than any other proprietary software. This article is concerned with cases that involve strictly and only the sale of exceptions."

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. Sure, there's loss of what the other party builds on top of the code. While I don't think this is a real loss, the argument that it is is exactly the argument that Stallman uses against the desirability of non-copyleft licenses, so Stallman's positions on these issues seem incoherent viewed together, even if each might be viewed as reasonable enough on its own.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  But he doesn't say the above is ideal, he says it's not unethical - which he also says of permissive licenses.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Isn't selling the exception explicitly enabling the proprietary extension, rendering the dual licensor essentially a partner in profit regarding the proprietary software?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      It doesn't enable proprietary extension any more than permissive licensing does - in fact, less so since it comes at a cost. Meanwhile, it also provides some funding for Free Software development. I can't imagine how that would be worse than a permissive license.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Users still have access to the same exact code. There is no loss. Sure, there's loss of what the other party builds on top of the code. While I don't think this is a real loss, the argument that it is is exactly the argument that Stallman uses against the desirability of non-copyleft licenses, so Stallman's positions on these issues seem incoherent viewed together, even if each might be viewed as reasonable enough on its own.

dllthomas 13y ago
But he doesn't say the above is ideal, he says it's not unethical - which he also says of permissive licenses.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Isn't selling the exception explicitly enabling the proprietary extension, rendering the dual licensor essentially a partner in profit regarding the proprietary software?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It doesn't enable proprietary extension any more than permissive licensing does - in fact, less so since it comes at a cost. Meanwhile, it also provides some funding for Free Software development. I can't imagine how that would be worse than a permissive license.