On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:21:21 +1000 Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:42:19 +1000 Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > babbled: > > > >> Holger Freyther wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 23 July 2008 01:38:35 Lorn Potter wrote: > >>> > >>>>> i never mentioned commercial apps nor money. > >>>> Yes you did. "pay for a license' implies both money and you needing a > >>>> commercial license, which implies you intend on producing closed source > >>>> applications. > >>> maybe he just wants commercial support? So that someone looks at the > >>> patches he sends? > >> Neuros uses the GPL license and has a support package. > >> > >> and we do look at patches you send. > > > > again - i said nothing of a closed or commercial app and charging for it - > > is said that i would HAVE to pay a license fee to get qt under a license > > OTHER than GPL so *I* can release my software under a non-GPL infested > > license (eg MIT-X11, BSD, etc. etc.). my point being that not all type of > > open are the same > > - and people prefer different levels of freedom and openness. i prefer to > > give my users more freedom of choice than you give yours. thuds my choice > > would always be to not use qt as it would restrict my freedoms to only be > > the kind of freedom you want, and in turn restrict my users too. > > > > By releasing something that allows closed source linking, you are restricting > your users rights to recompile all the software. How is that giving your > users more rights? If you don't like free software, why the heck are you as i said - YOU subscribe to one kind of freedom - i subscribe to another. mine allows a developer to create a closed application or library if they want to - that gives them freedom. THIS app and THIS library now cannot be considered open. but i do not begrudge them the freedom to do so. i very much align myself with Voltaire - not RMS. "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it". or in software terms: "I disagree with you making your software that uses mine closed source, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to do so". I believe in true freedom - and true freedom does NOT impose someone elses ideas of freedom on others. That is what I believe. So in the case of a closed app or lib built on top - well then, it is still the choice of a user to not use that app or library, but i sure am not going to force a particular brand of open (GPL in this case) down the throats of people. LGPL is definitely acceptable. as is BSD, MIT-X11 as the limitations of the license do not virally spread beyond the boundaries of the actual piece of software released and licensed under it. :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
