On Jan 28, 2008 5:19 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely
> characterize your views on the subject. Here goes:
>
> You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective.
The GPL is a very powerful license, which is all i wanted to show, it
even includes the so called LinuxSampler exception,
it's very restrictive to the advantage of oss developers yet it grants
all freedoms according to FSF.
> Developers should instead assign license on a per-user basis, charging more
> money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project.
Ever heard of dual licensing?
>
> You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for
> open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think
> the GPL adequately protects developers' interests.
A legal intepretation is something else than rewriting the license terms.
>
> You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are
> largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a
> commercial product is already violating the terms of the license.
>
> Is that correct?
No i think you should read my emails again. I think i said more than enough.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jan 28 08:15:05 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 08:15:05 EET