On Jan 30, 2008 6:01 PM, Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:10 +0100, Marek wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
> > >
> > > > What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
> > >
> > > I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
> > >
> > > Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
> > > making the same nonsensical point over and over again.
> >
> > Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the
> > *all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD.
>
> How's this one:
>
> > 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.
>
> After a few people pointed out how obviously and completely wrong this
> is,
and i have numerous times explained why they're wrong....
The GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism. It says, "you can charge."
The extensive interpretation (FSF) would be, charge anything you want,
then adopted in GPLv3.
The restrictive interpretation would be, charge a fair amount(which is
something i'm inclined towards).
> now you're talking about how companies can, in fact, use GPL
> software for commercial purposes:
No, read on...
>
> > If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense of way, will
> > eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
> > squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
> > they will eventually start seeking for a different license.
Here i meant developers releasing source code under the GPL.
>
> So now you're saying the GPL does not prohibit commercial use.
No, it depends, mostly it does not.
> You
> disagree with this, however:
>
> > Every single developer can choose
> > another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
> > write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
> > things, since it's a defacto standard.
These could be the consequences of most developers adopting a (in fact
very) restrictive interpretation of the GPL for various reasons.
>
> So, to summarize:
>
> - The GPL doesn't force commercial users to pay the developer (it
> doesn't do so because that would not even remotely be a Free Software
> license, but that's another discussion).
How so?
>
> - You do not like this fact (why I don't know, since you don't develop
> anything of worth, and developers who do are arguing against you on this
> very point...)
It's their software. They either protect it or not for whatever reasons.
I'm giving free legal advice.
>
> - Therefore it would be nice if the GPL meant <what you want it to mean>
> because then there would be only one license.
>
> Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do know this: just because you /want/
> the GPL to mean something, doesn't mean it does. You can't invent a
> crazy interpretation of the GPL (seemingly not based on the actual text
> of the license itself, no less)
> and then pretend that is what the
> license says.
i've explained this in my other mail.
>
> I'm quite sure the real, actual, lawyers who the FSF has had pour over
> the GPL - literally right down to the meaning of each individual word -
> know what it means more than you do.
Let me as a non-developer rephrase that:
I'm also quite sure that your code is worthless, since there are so
many developers doing the same kind of applications, that are more
talented, more skilled and more experienced and they're even more
succesful!
Quite silly, don't you think?
> The actual interpretation of the
> GPL hasn't changed in well over a decade, yours did in the past 2 days.
It was changing all the time.
>
> The point of the GPL, as you say, is that we all understand what it
> says, because it's so ubiquitous (same goes for BSD, etc). You are
> doing nothing but trying to destroy this common understanding by
> claiming the GPL means ridiculous things it most certainly doesn't.
> Please stop, or at least READ the thing before discussing it's
> interpretation.
Please fix your code, i haven't used your software, but it's full of
bugs and, just fix it ok?
Also silly.
>
> As far as the commercial use 'issues', there is plenty of information on
> the FSF site and elsewhere why allowing commercial use is a good thing
> for Free Software.
I have commented on that already.
> Developers who license software under the GPL are
> happy to have commercial users, as long as they contribute changes back
> to the community (that's the point of the license).
>
> You seem to have forgotten that the GPL is not about money.
Well you seem to be happy about General Public Labour. I'm admiring
you for that. In any case it is always your decision.
> You are
> free to go and create a license that is, but don't pretend the GPL is
> something is explicitly is not.
>
> Good enough analysis for you?
What analysis?
> P.S. Learn first, lecture second. Not the other way around.
Sounds as a good rule. Stick to it. Go on and read my other mails again :)
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 31 04:15:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 04:15:12 EET