(3) is purely a question of contract law. MySQL AB owns only the trademark to the "MySQL" name.
Untrue, both parties to this dispute seem to accept that MySQL AB also owns the copyright to MySQL, which they license under the GPL.
The question of whether NuSphere violated the GPL is a red herring. To all appearences, they are in blatent violation, and the FSF should sue their butts to smitherenes.
It's difficult to see how the FSF would have any case at all. What is the supposed connection between the FSF and MySQL?
It's MySQL AB who own the copyright to MySQL and who license it under the GPL, they are the ones who can sue for breaching their copyright, they are the ones who are in fact suing for breaching their copyright.
But (unless the contract states so explicitly) that violation has no bearing on the validity of their contract with MySQL AB laying out the terms of their use of the MySQL name
Correct. And the trademark issue likewise has no bearing on NuSphere's copyright violation in statically linking their proprietary code to MySQL AB's GPL'd code. There are two separate issues, that's no reason to just dismiss one of them.
I think that it is fairly apparent that MySQL AB is right, however, why do they insist on LOOKING wrong by being so unprofessional? Typos, bad grammar, and universal statements litter their posts, and they behave like all around jerks. I find myself wanting to believe that NuSphere is right, simply because they know how to behave decently.
Which Swedish statements by NuSphere were you using as a basis for comparison? Seriously, you're a pretty twisted individual if you want to believe bad things about someone based on their use of grammar in a foreign language. Oh, don't tell me, they "should" be a giant corporation employing marketing people to prepare their statements, otherwise they "should" be guilty of something.
Your reference to NuSphere knowing how to behave decently loses me complaetely. Given that they don't behave decently, for example by violating MySQLs GPL licence, what makes you think that they know how to? And to be honest, if they know how to behave decently but choose not to then that's worse than if they didn't know how to.
Microsofts lawyers seem to agree that the GPL is enforceable, since we havent seen any MS-Linux
(just a silly example, I dont expect MS to want to return to Unix-type software)
I don't think lack of an MS-Linux proves much, but it is implicit in their objections to the GPL that they think it works.
The FSF disagree with you.
They say, and I qoute: "at least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The question was whether or not people were being forced to do anything. Your quote relates to someone wanting to use Readline. There's simply no connection.
You might as well say "people are forced at gunpoint to pay Lotus money, it's simply theft" and then support it by quoting Lotus as saying that people who wanted to use their software had to pay. There is no force, there is no gun, it is not theft, not even by analogy.
It is unlikely that I will be able to take some open source to a programmer and pay him or her to modify it to fit my wants.
Why do you find that unlikely? I guess the cost might not be to your liking but that's the only obstacle I can think of and that's true of car modifications too. What was it you wanted to have done?
If the user of a web browser wants the ability to block 1x1 transparent images then the idiocy of your paymasters is not a reason for them to be unable to do so.
That's the point, the first person wanted to be able to block these images, the second complained that then as a web page writer they wouldn't be able to force the layout that they wanted. Whining about the dificulties of writing commercial pages is simply irrelevant to someone looking for the features they want in their browser.
Because the holder of the license is in America. Historically, people often sue foreigners in their own country, and then expect the other country to agree..
Well a great many of these historical people will have been gravely dissapointed then. At best you then have to sue again in the person's own jurisdiction to get any money because your own courts simply won't have the power to seize their assets, regardless of any ruling they may make.
You *do* realize that 100$ a year, plus the automatic upgrade, is *cheaper* than the current price?
Depends what price you currently pay.
My employers recently upgraded from Office 95 to Office 2000, I doubt we'll upgrade to Office XP any time soon and I don't doubt there are any number of businesses still using Office 95 (or earlier versions for that matter). What are you using as the current price per annum?
Why would you think people want an automatic upgrade? If we'd automatically been upgraded to Office 97 we would have had to carry out extensive testing for compatibility between that and our templates and other applications across all our offices. What exactly would have been so great about that when it didn't have any features attractive enough to us to want to buy it?
What would American courts care about GPL infringements in Germany?
In most cases they shouldn't. If there's a GPL infringement in Germany you should sue (or not) in Germany. Your question almost seem to imply that the American courts should be involved in such circumstances, why?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that technically the BSD license seems freer (in a dictionary sense) than the GPL only because it allows you to do whatever you want.
Correct, GPL is less free than BSD.
The GPL, IIRC (I'm not a license guru), mandates that if you use GPL code in your code you must GPL the entire thing (if this is not what the GPL says, then I am sorry for making the incorrect assumption).
You've got it pretty much right.
This is forced freedom.
Nonsense. You could call it "negotiated freedom" if you like but there is no element of force involved. If you want to use GPLd code in your program then in return you must licence your program under the GPL. If you don't want to use the GPL then you can't use the code. That's it. No force, no compulsion.
Which is better is all a matter of personal preference, but it appears to me that his point is valid in that the GPL places more demands on those who wish to use GPL code than the BSD license puts on those who wish to use BSD code.
That's correct, GPL makes more demands than BSD and is less free. Whether this cost in freedom is worth the gain is a matter of judgment. If you can just get over this idea that "force" is involved, you've got it.
GPL is a subset of open source; it is not equivalent to open source. It looks to me as though RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source.
That seems incredibly unlikely.
First, he's more likely to say that GPL is not just open source, that Free Software is something different to Open Source due to its emphasis on freedom, not just on the practicalities of source availability. You may or may not agree with the distinctions he makes, but to say that he will argue that "GPL=Open Source" is totally out of line with his position.
Secondly, the FSF have never claimed that the GPL is all there is to Free Software, and I wouldn't expect Richard Stallman to try to claim this now. They do like the GPL especially of course, after all it's their creation and is aimed at achieving their goals, but they identify a wide range of licences as being "Free" licences.
The subject of Free Software is obviously an important one to Richard Stallman and I would expect he'll cover the subject thoroughly. Obviously his own biases and prejudices will be very much in evidence but I doubt he'll simplify the way you sem to think he will.
If you are worried about the implications of LinuxCare's decision to stop funding the XFS project and what it means for the future of Linux as a enterprise OS, kindly give them a call at 800-544-3746, between 9 AM and 10 PM PST M-F, and let them know what you think, POLITELY.
Are you going to phone all the other companies with financial difficulties and let them know POLITELY what you think of them not spending their diminishing resources the way you'd like? You think it just might possibly not seem so polite to them?
It isn't clear to me that you understand the position at all. Vidori don't need to reverse engineer the API to the library; Vidori created the API, they wrote the libary. Specifically, they created it out of the program Virtualdub, for the purpose of using its functionality within their closed source program.
You may feel that the resulting program and library do not between them constitute a derivative work, but reverse engineering really doesn't come into it. Personally I don't think there's any doubt that there is at least a real issue for a court to decide on here.
If Microsoft wanted to muddy the waters, wouldn't they have a bunch of people sign up for Slashdot, post lots of innocuous posts until the got moderation privs, then send in a agent provocateur, and the hell out of him?
Why? I'm not sure anyone would even notice the difference.
I agree that a lawsuit wouldn't be surprising, but I doubt anything would come out of it.
Me too. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Above.net have done anything wrong.
By blocking a business's web site, you're theoretically blocking them from making money, no matter how few ISPs are on the Above.net backbone.
They're choosing not to carry data from this particular source. They are not helping Macromedia to make money, but then they're not obligated to.
What gives Above.net the right to do this though?
They own a network through which Macromedia wish to transfer their data.
A backbone is supposed to be a stable artery for the Internet
You might suppose it to be that, Macromedia who own it aren't obliged to agree with your suppositions. If it makes you feel better don't call it a backbone.
not a judge of the content on other people's sites
I'm sure they make judgments about the running of their network all the time, including what data to let through and what to refuse. I think they'd be negligent to do otherwise, they're not a public utility.
Is their claim that spam is wasting their bandwidth or inconveniencing them?
I assume their "claim" is that they are not contractually obligated to carry this material and are choosing not to. If the people they contract with (I supsect that includes neither you nor Macromedia) disagree then no doubt they'll make their objections know to Above.net.
If adding www to their blockage was a mistake then hey, apologize and it's over, but if it was done on purpose, it's wrong and cost Macromedia business.
Why is it wrong and why do you feel that Above.net have some obligation to facilitate Macromedia's business? Are you obligated to make your home available to Macromedia as office space because to do otherwise would cost Macromedia business?
Since an electronic door lock could be considered a technlogical measure to control access to copyrighten material, it may be considered illegal under the DMCA.
Why only an electronic lock? Did mechanics suddenly stop being technology or something?
Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
Untrue. 17 U.S.C. 107, as you're presumably aware since you linked to it, states that one of the factors is "the nature of the copyrighted work". To say that there is no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel is to abandon that provision. They clearly are not the same, and the fact that they are not the same (i.e. are different in nature) is relevant to whether or not any use constitutes fair use, because the Act specifically says so.
Also note that fair use is a real hard argument to make here, since Veeck copied the entire code.
Making it available for public reference sure seems like a fair use of the text of legislation to me.
By making it freely available online, he eviscerated the market for the work
Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.
In any sane society the authors would be considered to have "eviscerated the market for the work" by submitting it for consideration by the legislature. At that moment it should no longer be under their control.
In any event, I can't really imagine what market value you feel that it has other than that given to it by the process of it being enacted at public expense.
The doc on the Microsoft website is dated 3-11-2000. Not exactly what I'd call news...
I'ts news to anyone who only just heard about it and not to anyone who already knew about it.
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, maybe religion is the issue here. (Note how my post two levels up from here was moderated down from 2 to 0 simply because it suggested that the GPL might not have been the best way to go!)
Right. And how exactly did you determine that that was the reason? Other posts have suggested that the GPL wasn't the best way to go, in fact they've used much less flattering language than that. They haven't been moderated down; some have even been moderated up.
But yours was modded down. Well of course, you know how eloquent your use of language is, how diplomatic your choice of words, how reasonable your every claim, it can't be that they could find any fault in your posts. There can be no reason but that you "suggested that the GPL might not have been the best way to go!". Zealots!
Seriously, you seem like a reasonably intelligent (albeit rather obsessive) person. Try actually reading your posts. Maybe leave it a few days and come back to it with a clear head. Look at what you say and more importantly (for this purpose) how you say it. You're not just disagreeing with people, you're being antagonistic. If that's how you want to come across then fine, just don't be surprised if people do moderate you down, however unjust that might seem.
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Ok, now I'm even more confused.
I'll try to help:)
RMS bitches about Qt-GPL, even though using it forces your program to be GPL.
But he pushes GTK, which lets you write as much closed-source software as you want.
Isn't closed-source software exactly what RMS is against.
I think an apology is in order.:-)*
I think your confusion stems from your imagining him bitching about QT under the GPL. Whilst he was certainly critical of it prior to that I'm not aware of him making any complaints about it being under the GPL. In fact I think he's very pleased that it is. Hope that helps.
With the BSD license, you don't have to give away anything. It's up to you.
That doesn't make any sense. If you use the BSD licence then you ARE giving the code away. The only choice you can make to "not give anything away" is to choose not to use the BSD licence (and not to use the GPL either). They couldn't have released Nautilus under the BSD licence without giving their code away, that just doesn't make any sense.
The real problem though was using GPLd stuff as a foundation. If they said, "we're going to sell new UI binaries for Windows," they might have done well. But starting out with GPLd gnome as a base, they were stuck to begin with.
I'm not at all sure that you're familiar with the subject matter. The Gnome libraries aren't GPLd, they're LGPLd. You can link proprietary software to them, if that's what you want to do.
There was no way they could make money. Shitty strategy. I'm surprised they got any VCs. Now those guys have a taint on themselves if they ever want to get VC money again.
I agree with you on all those points. I don't see how using BSD, Apple or IBM licences as you suggested in your original post would have helped though. Under any of those they would have encountered the exact same problem.
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm lets see now...We develop the greatest filemanager ever and give it away for free, then we make tons of money on providing support services and whatnot for Nautilus.
They don't seem to have had much of a business plan to put it mildly, but it's dificult to see that selling a proprietary file manager would have done much to recoup their $11 million either. I don't think free software versus proprietary software is really the issue here, they had no real plan to make money, at least not in the term that they needed it - they spent their 11 million before their file manager was even finished. They didn't have a chance to make money out of either proprietary software sales or services.
Slashdot Mirror
(3) is purely a question of contract law. MySQL AB owns only the trademark to the "MySQL" name.
Untrue, both parties to this dispute seem to accept that MySQL AB also owns the copyright to MySQL, which they license under the GPL.
The question of whether NuSphere violated the GPL is a red herring. To all appearences, they are in blatent violation, and the FSF should sue their butts to smitherenes.
It's difficult to see how the FSF would have any case at all. What is the supposed connection between the FSF and MySQL?
It's MySQL AB who own the copyright to MySQL and who license it under the GPL, they are the ones who can sue for breaching their copyright, they are the ones who are in fact suing for breaching their copyright.
But (unless the contract states so explicitly) that violation has no bearing on the validity of their contract with MySQL AB laying out the terms of their use of the MySQL name
Correct. And the trademark issue likewise has no bearing on NuSphere's copyright violation in statically linking their proprietary code to MySQL AB's GPL'd code. There are two separate issues, that's no reason to just dismiss one of them.
I think that it is fairly apparent that MySQL AB is right, however, why do they insist on LOOKING wrong by being so unprofessional? Typos, bad grammar, and universal statements litter their posts, and they behave like all around jerks. I find myself wanting to believe that NuSphere is right, simply because they know how to behave decently.
Which Swedish statements by NuSphere were you using as a basis for comparison? Seriously, you're a pretty twisted individual if you want to believe bad things about someone based on their use of grammar in a foreign language. Oh, don't tell me, they "should" be a giant corporation employing marketing people to prepare their statements, otherwise they "should" be guilty of something.
Your reference to NuSphere knowing how to behave decently loses me complaetely. Given that they don't behave decently, for example by violating MySQLs GPL licence, what makes you think that they know how to? And to be honest, if they know how to behave decently but choose not to then that's worse than if they didn't know how to.
Microsofts lawyers seem to agree that the GPL is enforceable, since we havent seen any MS-Linux
(just a silly example, I dont expect MS to want to return to Unix-type software)
I don't think lack of an MS-Linux proves much, but it is implicit in their objections to the GPL that they think it works.
The FSF disagree with you.
They say, and I qoute: "at least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The question was whether or not people were being forced to do anything. Your quote relates to someone wanting to use Readline. There's simply no connection.
You might as well say "people are forced at gunpoint to pay Lotus money, it's simply theft" and then support it by quoting Lotus as saying that people who wanted to use their software had to pay. There is no force, there is no gun, it is not theft, not even by analogy.
It is unlikely that I will be able to take some open source to a programmer and pay him or her to modify it to fit my wants.
Why do you find that unlikely? I guess the cost might not be to your liking but that's the only obstacle I can think of and that's true of car modifications too. What was it you wanted to have done?
If the user of a web browser wants the ability to block 1x1 transparent images then the idiocy of your paymasters is not a reason for them to be unable to do so.
That's the point, the first person wanted to be able to block these images, the second complained that then as a web page writer they wouldn't be able to force the layout that they wanted. Whining about the dificulties of writing commercial pages is simply irrelevant to someone looking for the features they want in their browser.
Now, shouting 'FIRE!' when there IS a fire sounds to me like a Pretty Good Idea. =) Shouting 'FIRE!' just to panic people is... well, just what is it?
:)
It's a fire practice
Because the holder of the license is in America. Historically, people often sue foreigners in their own country, and then expect the other country to agree..
Well a great many of these historical people will have been gravely dissapointed then. At best you then have to sue again in the person's own jurisdiction to get any money because your own courts simply won't have the power to seize their assets, regardless of any ruling they may make.
You *do* realize that 100$ a year, plus the automatic upgrade, is *cheaper* than the current price?
Depends what price you currently pay.
My employers recently upgraded from Office 95 to Office 2000, I doubt we'll upgrade to Office XP any time soon and I don't doubt there are any number of businesses still using Office 95 (or earlier versions for that matter). What are you using as the current price per annum?
Why would you think people want an automatic upgrade? If we'd automatically been upgraded to Office 97 we would have had to carry out extensive testing for compatibility between that and our templates and other applications across all our offices. What exactly would have been so great about that when it didn't have any features attractive enough to us to want to buy it?
What would American courts care about GPL infringements in Germany?
In most cases they shouldn't. If there's a GPL infringement in Germany you should sue (or not) in Germany. Your question almost seem to imply that the American courts should be involved in such circumstances, why?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that technically the BSD license seems freer (in a dictionary sense) than the GPL only because it allows you to do whatever you want.
Correct, GPL is less free than BSD.
The GPL, IIRC (I'm not a license guru), mandates that if you use GPL code in your code you must GPL the entire thing (if this is not what the GPL says, then I am sorry for making the incorrect assumption).
You've got it pretty much right.
This is forced freedom.
Nonsense. You could call it "negotiated freedom" if you like but there is no element of force involved. If you want to use GPLd code in your program then in return you must licence your program under the GPL. If you don't want to use the GPL then you can't use the code. That's it. No force, no compulsion.
Which is better is all a matter of personal preference, but it appears to me that his point is valid in that the GPL places more demands on those who wish to use GPL code than the BSD license puts on those who wish to use BSD code.
That's correct, GPL makes more demands than BSD and is less free. Whether this cost in freedom is worth the gain is a matter of judgment. If you can just get over this idea that "force" is involved, you've got it.
The Linux kernel is GPL (with the binary module exception, admittedly).
The 'Lesser' or Library GPL omits the control freak clause.
Like he said, the Linux kernel IS GPLd. Not LGPLd. You said that IBM could not have marketed Linux if it was GPLd. It is GPLd. Get it?
GPL is a subset of open source; it is not equivalent to open source. It looks to me as though RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source.
That seems incredibly unlikely.
First, he's more likely to say that GPL is not just open source, that Free Software is something different to Open Source due to its emphasis on freedom, not just on the practicalities of source availability. You may or may not agree with the distinctions he makes, but to say that he will argue that "GPL=Open Source" is totally out of line with his position.
Secondly, the FSF have never claimed that the GPL is all there is to Free Software, and I wouldn't expect Richard Stallman to try to claim this now. They do like the GPL especially of course, after all it's their creation and is aimed at achieving their goals, but they identify a wide range of licences as being "Free" licences.
The subject of Free Software is obviously an important one to Richard Stallman and I would expect he'll cover the subject thoroughly. Obviously his own biases and prejudices will be very much in evidence but I doubt he'll simplify the way you sem to think he will.
If you are worried about the implications of LinuxCare's decision to stop funding the XFS project and what it means for the future of Linux as a enterprise OS, kindly give them a call at 800-544-3746, between 9 AM and 10 PM PST M-F, and let them know what you think, POLITELY.
Are you going to phone all the other companies with financial difficulties and let them know POLITELY what you think of them not spending their diminishing resources the way you'd like? You think it just might possibly not seem so polite to them?
It isn't clear to me that you understand the position at all. Vidori don't need to reverse engineer the API to the library; Vidori created the API, they wrote the libary. Specifically, they created it out of the program Virtualdub, for the purpose of using its functionality within their closed source program.
You may feel that the resulting program and library do not between them constitute a derivative work, but reverse engineering really doesn't come into it. Personally I don't think there's any doubt that there is at least a real issue for a court to decide on here.
If Microsoft wanted to muddy the waters, wouldn't they have a bunch of people sign up for Slashdot, post lots of innocuous posts until the got moderation privs, then send in a agent provocateur, and the hell out of him?
Why? I'm not sure anyone would even notice the difference.
I agree that a lawsuit wouldn't be surprising, but I doubt anything would come out of it.
Me too. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Above.net have done anything wrong.
By blocking a business's web site, you're theoretically blocking them from making money, no matter how few ISPs are on the Above.net backbone.
They're choosing not to carry data from this particular source. They are not helping Macromedia to make money, but then they're not obligated to.
What gives Above.net the right to do this though?
They own a network through which Macromedia wish to transfer their data.
A backbone is supposed to be a stable artery for the Internet
You might suppose it to be that, Macromedia who own it aren't obliged to agree with your suppositions. If it makes you feel better don't call it a backbone.
not a judge of the content on other people's sites
I'm sure they make judgments about the running of their network all the time, including what data to let through and what to refuse. I think they'd be negligent to do otherwise, they're not a public utility.
Is their claim that spam is wasting their bandwidth or inconveniencing them?
I assume their "claim" is that they are not contractually obligated to carry this material and are choosing not to. If the people they contract with (I supsect that includes neither you nor Macromedia) disagree then no doubt they'll make their objections know to Above.net.
If adding www to their blockage was a mistake then hey, apologize and it's over, but if it was done on purpose, it's wrong and cost Macromedia business.
Why is it wrong and why do you feel that Above.net have some obligation to facilitate Macromedia's business? Are you obligated to make your home available to Macromedia as office space because to do otherwise would cost Macromedia business?
Since an electronic door lock could be considered a technlogical measure to control access to copyrighten material, it may be considered illegal under the DMCA.
Why only an electronic lock? Did mechanics suddenly stop being technology or something?
Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
Untrue. 17 U.S.C. 107, as you're presumably aware since you linked to it, states that one of the factors is "the nature of the copyrighted work". To say that there is no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel is to abandon that provision. They clearly are not the same, and the fact that they are not the same (i.e. are different in nature) is relevant to whether or not any use constitutes fair use, because the Act specifically says so.
Also note that fair use is a real hard argument to make here, since Veeck copied the entire code.
Making it available for public reference sure seems like a fair use of the text of legislation to me.
By making it freely available online, he eviscerated the market for the work
Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.
In any sane society the authors would be considered to have "eviscerated the market for the work" by submitting it for consideration by the legislature. At that moment it should no longer be under their control.
In any event, I can't really imagine what market value you feel that it has other than that given to it by the process of it being enacted at public expense.
The doc on the Microsoft website is dated 3-11-2000. Not exactly what I'd call news...
I'ts news to anyone who only just heard about it and not to anyone who already knew about it.
Actually, maybe religion is the issue here. (Note how my post two levels up from here was moderated down from 2 to 0 simply because it suggested that the GPL might not have been the best way to go!)
Right. And how exactly did you determine that that was the reason? Other posts have suggested that the GPL wasn't the best way to go, in fact they've used much less flattering language than that. They haven't been moderated down; some have even been moderated up.
But yours was modded down. Well of course, you know how eloquent your use of language is, how diplomatic your choice of words, how reasonable your every claim, it can't be that they could find any fault in your posts. There can be no reason but that you "suggested that the GPL might not have been the best way to go!". Zealots!
Seriously, you seem like a reasonably intelligent (albeit rather obsessive) person. Try actually reading your posts. Maybe leave it a few days and come back to it with a clear head. Look at what you say and more importantly (for this purpose) how you say it. You're not just disagreeing with people, you're being antagonistic. If that's how you want to come across then fine, just don't be surprised if people do moderate you down, however unjust that might seem.
Ok, now I'm even more confused.
:)
:-)*
I'll try to help
RMS bitches about Qt-GPL, even though using it forces your program to be GPL.
But he pushes GTK, which lets you write as much closed-source software as you want.
Isn't closed-source software exactly what RMS is against.
I think an apology is in order.
I think your confusion stems from your imagining him bitching about QT under the GPL. Whilst he was certainly critical of it prior to that I'm not aware of him making any complaints about it being under the GPL. In fact I think he's very pleased that it is. Hope that helps.
With the BSD license, you don't have to give away anything. It's up to you.
That doesn't make any sense. If you use the BSD licence then you ARE giving the code away. The only choice you can make to "not give anything away" is to choose not to use the BSD licence (and not to use the GPL either). They couldn't have released Nautilus under the BSD licence without giving their code away, that just doesn't make any sense.
The real problem though was using GPLd stuff as a foundation. If they said, "we're going to sell new UI binaries for Windows," they might have done well. But starting out with GPLd gnome as a base, they were stuck to begin with.
I'm not at all sure that you're familiar with the subject matter. The Gnome libraries aren't GPLd, they're LGPLd. You can link proprietary software to them, if that's what you want to do.
There was no way they could make money. Shitty strategy. I'm surprised they got any VCs. Now those guys have a taint on themselves if they ever want to get VC money again.
I agree with you on all those points. I don't see how using BSD, Apple or IBM licences as you suggested in your original post would have helped though. Under any of those they would have encountered the exact same problem.
Hmm lets see now...We develop the greatest filemanager ever and give it away for free, then we make tons of money on providing support services and whatnot for Nautilus.
They don't seem to have had much of a business plan to put it mildly, but it's dificult to see that selling a proprietary file manager would have done much to recoup their $11 million either. I don't think free software versus proprietary software is really the issue here, they had no real plan to make money, at least not in the term that they needed it - they spent their 11 million before their file manager was even finished. They didn't have a chance to make money out of either proprietary software sales or services.