From:	Scarius <bkopena AT erols DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: C++ copyright
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 1997 01:13:31 -0400
Organization:	Weasel Works
Lines:	16
Message-ID:	<340CF1FB.5AEC@erols.com>
References:	<01bcb63a$15e1a8c0$c93063c3 AT 8652hvt73761> <5udhv7$e0r AT dfw-ixnews5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
Reply-To:	bkopena AT erols DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host:	loc-as2s04.erols.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

firewind wrote:
> Sure you can. You can write "QuakeClone III" and charge 600$ for it if you
> want, absolutely no restrictions. However, if you wrote "QC III" using the
> standard C++ library, you would be forced to license it under the GNU
> General Public License. You could still sell it for 600$, you'd just have to
> let users have free access to the source, and who's going to pay big bucks
> for some binaries when the source is freely available?

You could copyright the art and stuff, then they'd have to pay for that.
However, that does make it easier for people to pirate it, in a way.
"Well, they already gave away half, so it's ummm, uh, okay for me to
give the rest away or something like that." Plus, alot of people
might not even realize the source was around. Then they'd have to get
the compiler, compile it correctly and it'd just be a big hassle. I
think the majority of whoever would buy it if the source wasn't free
would buy it anyway. The whole point seems kinda silly.

- Raw text -