> Well, yes, you should. If I've released my book as "open source" under > the GPL, then by contract I have specifically authorized you to > repackage it and sell it in any form you want so long as you don't alter > my work. Want you cannot do is claim that the original work is yours. > And you can't prevent anyone else from taking that same book and > repackaging it and selling it. > > You just don't understand the GPL.
I understand it just fine...perhaps you should read my previous threads =\ This (redistribution) is the inherent problem with the GPL, that is resulting in the community being ripped off, rather than benefiting the community. Despite the popular terminology, a GPLd book is not an open-source book - ALL books are open source books because you can READ their "source code". Do not summarize the GPL as "open source" and do not confuse "freely available" or "freely redistributable" with open source either. They are three very different philosophies that have been compiled into what we know as the GPL. The open-source and freely available portions of the GPL are great, but my whole argument has been what you stated...the "freely redistributable" section sucks, and needs to be reworked to prevent commercialization of otherwise free code. In real life, if you wrote a book, you wouldn't want someone to be able to take your hard, donated work and sell it to someone as part of a collection...but this is essentially what the GPL is allowing companies like RH to do. If you DO want people to take your hard, donated work and sell it as part of a collection (rather than the collection have to be free or cost-of-media) - fine...the GPL will suit you well, but you are doing a disservice to the community in the long run, just as the GPL+RedHat has done here. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
