GPL as an evaluation license

[Nadav Har'El]

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011, Aviad Mandel wrote about "Re: GPL as an evaluation license":
> It's true that I could try to write an evaluation contract, but the whole
> idea here is to tempt the engineers to download my library and to try it
> out.

Why would they be tempted less if the code was available on your site, but
not GPL but rather some home-brewed "you can only try this for personal
use" terms?

You're right that as an engineer, I would be much more likely to try some
library if it's code was available *now*, and only *later* worry about how
my company would buy a license - but I don't know why I would think that
GPL is better in that sense than any other random license.

In fact, in some cases you might achieve the opposite of what you intended.
In some companies, using a GPL library is considered a faux-pas, as if it is
some sort of contagious illness. Instead of attracting engineers with the GPL,
you might end up scaring (some of) them...

> If they steal code snippets, even better.

Why is it better? Do you really think you can track these cases of
stealing and sue them? I don't think you can base a real business on
this marketing technique ;-)

> Signing a long contract (even
> click "I agree") may be a chilling factor.

I agree, but just like with the GPL, also with a custom license they don't
need to sign anything. As long as the terms are clearly specified on the
site (before the download) and in the downloaded software.

You're right that if you start asking people to sign forms - even web forms -
you'll immediately turn away 90% of the curious engineers. We've all been
there, and turned away as soon as we saw these forms - that we didn't want
to, or weren't allowed to, sign.

> It's all in the embedded software field. Actually using the software equals
> to distribute it in the company's products. As long as they run it in the
> lab, it's still evaluation.

I don't know what your library is about, but have you considered other uses
your library might have? E.g., what if Google, Facebook, or some other company
which builds a million machines for its own use, decides that it is useful
and uses it? The GPL allows it to. Would you mind that? If you would, then
maybe the GPL isn't for you.

> And we all like to have the source. This is an extra plus over typical
> proprietary software vendors. And I need all advantages I can get.

Indeed, the source is important. But source availability != GPL.


-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Saturday, Apr  9 2011, 6 Nisan 5771
nyh at math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A good programmer is someone who looks
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |both ways before crossing a one-way street.