30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
7:02 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:18 PM, Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
Not expicitly. Which is why a lawyer usually has a set of methods and
tools in order to interpret a license if certain questions arise that
aren't explicitly covered.
I've chosen extensive intepretation of the GPLv2.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
I never said it does. I said that the GPL says no such thing. 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:
> > 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.
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. What
your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
that the GPL prohibits commercial use?
No. What you are saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there's is
any opinion that claims you can, or any opinion claiming
otherwise(both offering a comprehensive explanation). Except court
judgements in some countries(common law).
Clearly false interpretation - please show me(not the one you have
given me, i need facts, quoting GPL, puting my interpretation in
question etc).
You can certainly find tens of
thousands of references to the fact that it does not, and it is simply
a /fact/ that the license was created explicitly to not prevent any use.
Give me 3. (should be easy)
While the intentions may not define the license, that several lawyers
have gone over it, literally down to the meaning of each individual
word, and affirm that it does adhere to it's "spirit" is slightly more
compelling evidence than some quack on l-a-d with a penchant for
annoying people.
I need evidence that you know what you are talking about.
Marek