On 12/16/2014 06:39 PM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
arguably written less code in my free time). On the other hand, free software
also means that this software might be used for any purpose - even to harm or
kill people. LGPL (or any other discussed license) does not prevent this. Are
you feeling
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
BSD changes the whole picture. It makes me feel exploited if I contribute a
lot of ressources building free roads and others just invest a little but
profit from the combination of all roads (even charging me) instead of
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
Hey,
On 12/16/2014 06:09 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
(L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code
cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL.
This is not correct (depending on your
Hey,
On 12/18/2014 02:09 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
Please explain without analogies and use concrete examples instead.
We release RIOT under BSD. Company X takes the BSD'ed code and sells
some infrastructure around that, but basically, they sell commercially
supported RIOT under a non-free
Hey,
On 12/18/2014 02:10 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
(L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code
cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL.
This is not correct (depending on your definition of code and selling
of course).
I know that you know what my
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:35:58PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 12/18/2014 02:10 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
(L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code
cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL.
This is not correct (depending on your definition of
