28 Jan
2008
28 Jan
'08
1:02 a.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 5:11 AM, Forest Bond <forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
Sounds like an insult to me. Name the motivations please. Do not
mention the freedom for others to run the code for any purpose, to
modify it, study it, change it to your needs, distribute to others,
whether modified or not. We've been through this already. It's 100%
compatible with the intepretation.
If you're not seeking financial compesation, you can choose LGPL, or
even a less restrictive license, or even go public domain.
Either you're financially compensated in some other ways, ... or you
can eat your code if it fits in your micorwave owen. Whatever. I'm
fine with that.
Marek
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:34AM +0100, Marek wrote:
Who said this? The GPL? The GPL grants third parties the right to
distribute their software for a fee.
The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
Besides the term "Commercial interest"
means that the copyright holders are
also included.
By releasing software under the terms of the GPL, authors give others the right
to distribute their software for a fee without any compensation. Surely, you
recognize this. Why would you want commercial interest in your
software if you don't get
anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this,
i dont know of any.
This makes me wonder how well you understand open-source developers. You are,
after all, a lawyer, not a software developer. It does not surprise me in the
least that you can't imagine any motivation for publishing software beyond
financial compensation.