On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, jesus X wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> I'm confused by your argument.
>
> Once you "sell a copy" (define it how you will), that person can then
> make unlimited exactly copies and distribute them infinitely, thus
> rendering your attempt to sell the software moot. Aside from custom
> written software for a single client or user, selling GPLed software
> becomes a futile exercise.
Ah, ok. Yes, I agree, I said as much in my original reply to your comment.
Since you clearly understand the issues, I would recommend being more
careful when making statements like "RMS [sees] selling software as a
sin", which is not true at all (he encourages it), and "[GPL] software
itself must be 100% cost free", which again is patently untrue.
We have enough trouble with people misunderstanding the concept of free
software without untruths being spread by reliable sources as well! :-)
> You have to admit, with the license permitting unlimited
> redistribution by the licensee makes it harder to convince people to
> BUY it from you.
Yes, of course. I couldn't care less, personally. My belief is that
software should be free (as in free will), for reasons described quite
well by RMS in his papers. If this means it is not possible to make a
profit from software development, then so be it.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
