On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote: > > > On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all. > > > > > > I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well. > > > And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get > > > something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a > > > living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured > > > it's already happening. On a voluntary basis. > > > > > > The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to > > > the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y > > > > No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It > > implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms > > of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution. > > This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of > Free Software, and the GPL.
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings out of it or whatever like that? > Don't speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have > no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Again, give me the facts. Do you need a team of 10 PhD lawyers with 35+ experience of succesfully defending the GPL in court, all over the world? And you know what Dave, from what i learned from your reactions, it still wouldn't do any justice. Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
