| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:20:05AM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 2 |
> The GPL does not prevent commercial sales of software. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Officially, no. Practically, yes: you only get to sell one copy before your |
| 5 |
customer turns around and gives it away. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Proprietary software denies people these rights so the GPL's prevention of |
| 8 |
> such downstream licensing is a good thing. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Only if you think that destroying the software industry as we now know it is |
| 11 |
a good thing. I beg to differ. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> The GPL is non-free in a way which preserves rights |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Only if you're not a programmer. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> but the problems come in when other reasonable terms wish to be applied to |
| 18 |
> software such as attribution or more strict patent licensing (such as |
| 19 |
> Apache's new license) or one wants to use code in a project that is not |
| 20 |
> licensed to preserve rights (BSD). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
...IOW, if you want to live in Stallman's utopia, you're welcome; if not, |
| 23 |
the FSF doesn't care about your freedom. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Ideally, the GPL would be unneccesary and only be a problem, but |
| 26 |
> unfortunately everything is not ideal and such licensing is needed to |
| 27 |
> preserve rights that are not guaranteed by governments. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Governments don't guarantee rights. They only take them away. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives