"Rahul Dhesi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
I think that you are misreading the situations. Certainly a copyright
owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it
away. That makes sense. But the BusyBox authors are totally willing
to give their work away and have been doing so for years. The only
thing that they are hammering their users in regard to is for not
publishing the acknowledgement and code itself on the user's own
site....
No, they are not giving it away. They are giving permission to others to
use their work only so long as the others abide by their conditions. As
soon as the other person violates these condition, the permission is
withdrawn. This is not the same as "giving it away". A better term is
"licensing'.
Nonsense, they are giving it away as in there is no charge and there is no
funding of the author by the users. A requirement to publish some source
prior to being allowed to pass the free code on to others is akin to making
the user swing a dead cat over his head and bow to Mecca before doing the
same. Such an action achieves the same level of benefit to others.
The fourth sentence I quoted above is better rewritten thus:
But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to license their work and
have been doing so for years.
They give it away.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
