30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
7:15 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 11:46 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote:
What's that got to do with the price of mince?
Yeah right, nothing to say, let's start offending people.
And if you were reading the conversation more carefully you would know
why the FSF chose "to charge for physical transfer" and not "to charge
for software".
And please don't paste the link for their "Selling software"
article. I've commented on that already.
Marek
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:38 +0100, Marek wrote:
What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
licence. Where's the issue?
Go ahead. Elaborate.
Despite
what Marek says about the evils of commercial exploitation or
whatever, by licensing under the GPL developers /encourage/ commercial
use - so long as changes get contributed back to the community.
My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
this would be selling of my router.
How do you solve this issue? These are
my wishes, and countless other developer's wishes, despite
what a certain non-developer (who ironically only exploits GPL software,
not creates it) might say.
How do you know i'm not using MacOSX? If these are you wishes, how about simply not
taking my point of view,
or my advice?
How about not insulting someone who's trying to help those who are
interested, if you are not interested?
And that, folks, is why you shouldn't take drugs.
Marek, lay off the mind-altering substances, okay? You're starting to
worry us a bit here.
People who want to make a CD full of free software and sell it, at a
profit, are more than welcome to do so.
That's distribution. Not selling software.