On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
> > <linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > > > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
> > >
> > > I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
> > > And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
> > > something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
> > > living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
> > > it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
> > >
> > > The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
> > > the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
> >
> > No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
> > implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
> > of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
>
> This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
> Free Software, and the GPL.
Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
out of it or whatever like that?
> Don't speak as if you were an expert on a subject when you clearly have
> no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Again, give me the facts.
Do you need a team of 10 PhD lawyers with 35+ experience of
succesfully defending the GPL in court, all over the world?
And you know what Dave, from what i learned from your reactions, it
still wouldn't do any justice.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jan 30 20:15:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 30 2008 - 20:15:25 EET