chefren wrote:
On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting it on the internet and everybody else
getting it for free?
You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every
programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in
that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't
matter to him.
Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his
creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer
may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that.
Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer
should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little
feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask
a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the
moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too.
Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little
feature to get money for it.
This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why
money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let
people earn money.
I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with
regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general.
The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the
recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software
as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. To
accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's
what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of
software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify
it as they desire. It is only once they decide to *further distribute*
the software that they are restricted. At that point the only
restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby
giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider.
No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your
software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they
are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the
recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to
change it and distribute it as they see fit.
While that *can* present a situation where you sell software to PERSON_A
and PERSON_A distributes the code to whomever they choose, it's a
perfectly reasonable assumption that that is not likely to occur in a
high-end software field because no corporation or organization will want
to give away something for which they had to pay top dollar.
Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a
final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases
under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under
the GPL.
In no way is anyone saying "you can't make a comfortable living writing
code" and that you have to go through life as a beggar.
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that anyone should use the GPL
over another license. When I talk about releasing code under the GPL in
previous paragraphs I am speaking for hypothetical situations. I have
only been involved with GPL software for a limited time, 4-5 years, so
my understanding of GPL/v2 may be incorrect.
kmw
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
