On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 06:48 PM, Profpatsch wrote: > On 16-07-06 09:50am, Kevin Cox wrote: > > IIUC you can't "really require" money for a GPL program. You can charge > > for the distribution or for binaries or whatever you like, but nothing > > is stopping others from building and distributing the program for no > > charge (or even taking the money themselves) this is part of the freedom > > offered by the license. > > I’m not sure how that fares legally (compared to proprietary licenses), > but in a day-to-day environment, this holds true for *every* digital > file. > > It is a basic property. > > If you don’t think so, I point you to $FILE_SHARING_WEBSITE of your > choice.
That patterns of bytes are easily disseminated seems impertinent to me. An unlicensed distributor of proprietary software can be *forced* to stop their activity and also be made to pay for any damages that the copyright holder is able to prove. A libre software vendor can ask for payment but they have no recourse against re-distributors. I believe this is what Kevin Cox is referring to. I agree with Jookia that the policy proposed in this thread is inappropriate for Nixpkgs. I think a case could be made for adding standard meta attributes containing information about where to go to pay/donate, but only if absent built-in policies. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
