30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
1:18 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
I never said it does. I said that the GPL says no such thing. What
your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
that the GPL prohibits commercial use? You can certainly find tens of
thousands of references to the fact that it does not, and it is simply
a /fact/ that the license was created explicitly to not prevent any use.
While the intentions may not define the license, that several lawyers
have gone over it, literally down to the meaning of each individual
word, and affirm that it does adhere to it's "spirit" is slightly more
compelling evidence than some quack on l-a-d with a penchant for
annoying people.
-DR-
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that? On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation
for distribution at all.
I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.