David N. Welton wrote, On 14/05/2003 9.35:
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin
Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people.
From what I've seen, many projects do not read the GPL in full, and just "know" that it prevents companies from freely getting money for their work.
Which is not true of course, but it follows this reasonong:
1- companies distribute closed source 2- with GPL they cannot close the source 3- they will not use my product inside theirs'
The LGPL becomes: they can use it but cannot make money on my work only, but only if used as a library. The reasonong is the same of the above.
What surprises me is that AFAIK the GPL prevents closing the source not to prevent profitability, which instead is the main aim AFAIK of many that now choose GPL.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
