30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
1:05 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:55:19 Marek wrote:
We should probably stop feeding the troll. Must be lonely under that
bridge...
Gordon
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
Your interpretation robs me of the ability to use GPLed code within a
commercial product. This is explicitly contrary to the terms of the GPL.
If you look at the FSF's website, they even have a handy FAQ that explains all
this. Perhaps you should take the time to read this.
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. Don't
speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have
no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Again, give me the facts.
Do you need a team of 10 PhD lawyers with 35+ experience of
succesfully defending the GPL in court, all over the world?
And you know what Dave, from what i learned from your reactions, it
still wouldn't do any justice.