29 Jan
2008
29 Jan
'08
2:01 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
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.
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. It's the very first 'freedom' (out of four)
in the definition of Free Software, which was written by the same person
as the GPL, for the same reasons.
If the Free Software Definition is too vague there is plenty of
information on the FSF site that clearly explains this, with rationale.
Don't speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have
no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
-DR-
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