Marius Amado Alves writes:
and because your questioning indicates convergence with the SDC
philosophy, which is really simple: it's open source, but if it's used
commercially, then the authors get a cut.
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used
Marius Amado Alves writes:
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion.
Actually, it's a small minority of speakers who won't follow the
suggestion. Their life is made more complicated by their choice.
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
That sounds much more
like the Aladdin Free Public License...
I'll check. Thanks.
--
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion.
Actually, it's a small minority of speakers who won't follow the
suggestion. Their life is made more complicated by their choice...
Well, we don't really
Marius Amado Alves said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:56AM +0100,:
Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute
under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions?
So that people do not (mis)use the freedoms to restrict/takeaway/deny
freedoms downstream.
--
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
Please read:
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
Please read:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Note in particular:
Thus,
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
Please read:
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not
about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If
you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not
about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If
you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
Freedom is about
10 matches
Mail list logo
