Hit a raw nerve. Learn to calm yourself antrik and you`ll see more clerarly.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 02:05:19PM -0500, steve paesani wrote: > > > > ... Developers charge for the actual work being done -- and once > > > payed, > > the > > > availability of the results doesn't need to be restricted > > > > I agree. > > No you don't. You are proposing some kind of license model that *does* > restrict the availability of the results. Or at least you did originally > -- don't know what your current idea is. > > > True, free software is, by fact, a myth. > > What the FUCK are you talking about? > > I guess you still don't even know what "free software" means. Must have > been illusory of me, expecting you to follow my advice; to actually take > a look at gnu.org, and *try* to understand what it is all about. Say > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for > example. > > > Lest developers have starved to death after 7 or so days of > > programming GPL licensed code they were sustained, somehow, by others > > which invariably equates to getting paid. > > See, you agree that there is no problem :-P > > > The organised and suastained suport however form much of the software > > written in this manner can be said by some if not may to be lacking. > > Oh? I don't think RedHat customers are complaining about lack of > sustained support. > > > I am for an open development compensation licence. It is > > straightforward, honest, and alleviates the what I and perhaps others > > might say is overcharging for running a 'market copy and print' shop, > > aka royalties, after development, maintenance and enhancement costs > > are covered. > > I don't see how this differs from free software published under the GPL. > > -antrik- > > >
