30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
12:55 p.m.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
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:
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. 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 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.
Marek