[Reply-To re-established, as a repeated clue.] Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This is a degenerate case you have set up for purely pedantic > purposes. Who releases a GPL'ed piece of code and then says > that no one can have it unless at least one person pays for it > first? Hilarious. Well, *I* did, of course. Just to show conclusively that your category is useless to begin with. > Nor is it entirely clear what it is you're selling in this context. No, it's _absolutely_ clear: Access to the code and a bundle of usage rights. Haven't you read the licence text, _even now_? > To me, it seems more an act of blackmail than anything else! Then, you're going to really _hate_ proprietary licences, which convey considerably fewer usage (and other) rights. This is the part that really annoys me about people who rant about _others'_ application of the GNU GPL to copies of their (the owners') personal property: They fail to notice that, aside from other problems, their dislikes must logically apply "a fortiori" to code received under proprietary licences. And calling a voluntary offer of access to someone else's property "blackmail" has to be the most lunatic thing I've heard all week. Anyhow, we're done. Still. -- Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music, [EMAIL PROTECTED] denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
