>> That looks like a challenge. Let's see: Your sentence (and I quote)
>> 'Hey - I don't much like copyleft anymore either and I am all for money
>> making off OSS',
>> in response to Jon Stevens'
>> 'I'm in the business to make money off of Open Source. I believe in
>> Open, not Free'
>> both seem to imply that you cannot make money off Free (or, in your
>> case, copylefted) software. Which is untrue. Now, my Webster says that
>> misleading is 'that leads in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action
>> or belief'; I think this piece qualifies.
>
>Since you quoted me and challenged that quote, let me qualify my statement a
>bit more:
>
>It isn't always possible to make money off of (or use) Free Software (ie:
>GPL) when doing development and that is why I wrote what I wrote.
>
>For example, say you do contract work for some large corporation. If you
>depend on any free software (ie: GPL) during development, then that would
>force you to also GPL your code because you are distributing it to them.
>
>Since I have been in the services business (ie: some large corporation hires
>the corporation that I work for to write software for them) for the last 7+
>years, GPL would be evil for me.
>
>I hope that clarifies things a bit.
I certainly see the point you are trying to bring across.
This possibly don't goes anywhere from here as we start entering
"religious grounds".
At that point it probably is a matter of personal perception wether the
benefit of "having all the tools and algorithms available" is outweighted
by the fact that "all modifications one does to said tools and algorithms"
have to be GPL'd as well.
If you think it does you definitely have to rewrite already perfectly
working code which in itself takes quite some time and "wastes" valuable
resources.
Having said the above I share Alex Fern�ndez concerns that at some time
in the future Apache et al ("The Benign") might become usurpt by some
folks and turn into "The Evil Apache Corp" or similar scenarios that
ultimately will result in Apache become proprietary.
Anyway, the above only deals with the perceived disadvantages of the
GPL compared to the Apache Licence (there are disadvantages both ways
but I'm not elaborating unless specifically ask -- preferably in private
mail).
However I have not yet read any argument against using LGPL'd software
which does not force you to LGPL anything you create with it. It does
force you to share your enhancements to the LGPL'd code but what is
the difference to what you are doing here with all the software which
falls under the Apache Licence ?
IMO you also share your enhancements with the community.
Only LPGL and GPL try to make sure your freedom can't be taken away.
Or that's my understanding.
Just to add some statistics myself:
I'm in a similar situation as some others in that I'm in the service
business as well (15+ years). So far I didn't feel hindered by GPL. On
the contrary.
One of the major issues that so far have ultimately prevented me from
dedicating time to developing for the jakarta community is the fact that
the Apache licence does _not_ prevent this work to eventually vanish
into proprietary land.
So far I hope the amount of developers that work in this community do
kind of guarantee my freedom and indeed I believe that won't change in
the near future.
But I can easily think of scenarios how this could. What if Java becomes
as successful as Sun hopes it will. What if Sun becomes the new M$ ?
Just my thoughts, best,
Michael
--
Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Michael Gerdau email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Windows is made by MicroSOFT, not MicroGOOD, MicroRIGHT, or MicroFAST.
PGP-keys available on request or at public keyserver
