On 12-10-04 12:14 PM, Felipe T. R. Tovar wrote:
[email protected]
Patrick, suppose somebody gets your code and implements improvements
on it, and want to be paid for this, you would disallow somebody to
charge for their work?
By restricting your software to be redistributed with paid
improvements, you may be restricting its improvement, and achieving
your goal, to help parents of autistic children.
Your "free as in beer" version can easily spread in the mouth-to-mouth
way, so I don't think you should be that affraid of the selling of
unmodified version of your software.
In any way, you won't be able to fix all the problems of the world.
You can create a good piece of software, and help people. You can
allow them to improve it and help people further.
If you think you should find another license for your software, go
ahead, but I hope you realize that you can help better and more people
by using a free license and running the risk of somebody fooling some
parent in buying it than releasing it with a proprietary license.
Sorry for my bad english. Not a native speaker.
Felipe.
Hi Felipe
I'd better not answer this. I should wind things down now. The FSF
foundation and it's members care about free software but the scope of
concerns stops there. FSF compatible licences do not protect charitable
software from becoming for-profit, period.
I am coming up with more ideas but they will only inflame things here...
I am a native English speaker and your writing is better then mine, not
to worry....
-Patrick
