to have convenient access to comments made by people, I would need to obtain “free” subscription to TechRepublic

So . . . should writers just decide that TR’s community members and other readers aren’t worthy to read about licensing models other than TechRepublic’s publishing and membership policy? Has it occurred to you that writing an article published at TR doesn’t mean the writer choose the licensing and membership policy? What exactly are you trying to imply? Does the membership policy somehow invalidate the actual statements made in the article?

can you cite an example of monopolist behavior enabled by having the software released under GPL? I mean in the classical sense - not letting other people/corporations compete over the same market,and being able to charge monopolistic prices.

If you want general examples, read the linked SOB entry. If you want very specific, direct relationships between GPL use and higher prices (for instance), you might want to consider that proving such direct relationships is extremely difficult.

people won’t pay the price, which I want for the right to use my software - if I release it under BSD rather than GPL/LGPL.

Please be more precise about that “price”, because so far I don’t see how your statement is true — so I must be assuming the wrong “price”.

I don’t see a real contradiction between what I said and what you said. I already agreed that it may make sense to release security software under more liberal licenses

Maybe I misread what you said, but . . .

it should be determined on case by case basis.

I disagree. It’s my opinion that a “default allow” approach should be taken to spreading secure software.

1. GPL being a tool of monopolists - can you cite an example of monopolist behavior enabled by having the software released under GPL? I mean in the classical sense - not letting other people/corporations compete over the same market,and being able to charge monopolistic prices.

2. Very simple - people won’t pay the price, which I want for the right to use my software - if I release it under BSD rather than GPL/LGPL.

3. I don’t see a real contradiction between what I said and what you said. I already agreed that it may make sense to release security software under more liberal licenses; although it should be determined on case by case basis.

1. The GPL is actually a tool of monopolists. Ironic — isn’t it?

2. I don’t see how something like the BSD license interferes with the kind of open source business model you discuss.

3. You might want to reconsider how you choose your licensing model for security software.