28 Jan
2008
28 Jan
'08
12:50 a.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 5:19 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Hi,
Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely
characterize your views on the subject. Here goes:
You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective.
The GPL is a very powerful license, which is all i wanted to show, it
even includes the so called LinuxSampler exception,
it's very restrictive to the advantage of oss developers yet it grants
all freedoms according to FSF.
Developers should instead assign license on a per-user
basis, charging more
money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project.
Ever heard of dual licensing?
You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for
open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think
the GPL adequately protects developers' interests.
A legal intepretation is something else than rewriting the license terms.
You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are
largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a
commercial product is already violating the terms of the license.
Is that correct?
No i think you should read my emails again. I think i said more than enough.
Marek