> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the end-users' lose the 
> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a reasonable cost. And 
> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a reasonable profit 
> building and selling the product.

IMO what you are missing in your reasoning is that if the difference 
between this new product and an existing GPLed product is not too large, 
it won't take long for someone to write the extra part anyway. So end 
users win both ways: the 90% product was already free, so it probably 
had a lot of users, and the 100% product will probably appear soon.

If fact they might win a third way too: you will spend your effort on an 
area that is not yet covered by GPLed products, so the range of 
available software will grow, more that when you had spent your effort 
on the 10% part.

Note that this works best for tools that are (often) used by 
programmers, because then the users are also potential writers of new parts.

So I see the various license as more or less complementing each other: 
newer areas are 'explored' by commercial licenses, well-trotten areas 
are secured by free software.

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist