On Jan 28, 2008 5:19 AM, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely > characterize your views on the subject. Here goes: > > You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective.
The GPL is a very powerful license, which is all i wanted to show, it even includes the so called LinuxSampler exception, it's very restrictive to the advantage of oss developers yet it grants all freedoms according to FSF. > Developers should instead assign license on a per-user basis, charging more > money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the > project. Ever heard of dual licensing? > > You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for > open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't > think > the GPL adequately protects developers' interests. A legal intepretation is something else than rewriting the license terms. > > You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are > largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a > commercial product is already violating the terms of the license. > > Is that correct? No i think you should read my emails again. I think i said more than enough. Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
