2006/3/8, Glynn Clements <<a href="mailto:glynn@gclements.plus.com">glynn@gclements.plus.com</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>As I see it, the main risk of allowing proprietary derivatives is a<br>risk of "siphoning off" developers and beta testers (aka "users") from<br>the free version towards a "mostly, but not quite" free version.
<br><br>IMHO, the biggest risk is with versions which are "free-enough for<br>most people", e.g. "free for non-commercial use". OpenDWG is probably<br>a good example; it isn't "Free Software", but it's close enough to
<br>significantly reduce the chances of a genuinely-free alternative being<br>developed.</blockquote><div> </div><br></div>Hello list, hello Glynn,<br><br>I don't think OpenDWG is a good example because there is no free alternative and AFAIK Open Desing Alliance hasn't fork any free software, and there is no community around this project.
<br>*BSD OS are free for more than 10 years, and many commercial derivatives has born. *BSD still have strong community.<br>I don't think BSD, MIT and other permissive licences are threat for opensource developpers and users.
<br><br>According to the first draft of GPLv3, it seem that gplv3 software will be more "compatible" with other free software.<br><br>Just my two cents<br><br>Laurent<br>