On Aug 21, 4:08 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It seems the GNU licenses are designed so you can't just monopolize > > off someone else's work -- rip it off and pilfer it for your profit, > > which is what incorporating it into a proprietary package without > > making that free would do. > > Wrong. I'd say you have been reading too many of Linus Torvalds' > rants: that is his opinion as well. >
Haven't read a single one. > The GPL is not a "tit for tat" license: the upstream author gets > nothing from the recipient by defaul, nor does he have any right to. > But any further downstream recipients get all the rights the GPL > guarantees. The GPL ensures that no recipient gets crippled software, > software which can't be serviced. It is the software engineering > equivalent of placing good schematics inside of any sold appliance. > > So the GPL is "tat for tat" rather than "tit for tat": it is not > reciprocal but seminal. > Oh, so you can go and profit off of the other person's work, _provided_ that it stays free and GPL. I was meaning trying to make it proprietary. And was agreeing that that was an obvious no-no. > > This may be good, but what is the GNU position on monopolizing or > > reaping a profit off licensing your OWN work? > > You have to distinguish here between the stance of the GNU project in > general, the subset of the effects and goals that the GPL codifies, > and the FSF's and Richard Stallman's personal convictions, and those > have changed over time as well. > What is the stance of those on this issue, anyway? > I recommend that you read the GNU manifesto. It should tell you > something. > Hmm. I noticed this on the GNU Manifesto page: "In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post- scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming." But would there be other businesses in such a world that would have such as low a starting capital as programming? See that's what it comes down to. Or would in that world, high starting capital not be a problem since everyone would have enough money for it? > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
