On 11/11/2015 9:37 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
I have no idea what "onerous and burdensome requirements" are placed on
contributors to GPL software. I've contributed to GPL software and the
price I paid was learning how to do so; with the tools to do so... a price
made attainable _by_ the very nature and existence of the GPL software I'm
writing. The complete ecosystem of GPL software used to create and publish
my work is the opposite of onerous and burdensome. It's empowering and
liberating.
I'll enumerate some:
You are forced to use the GPL for your changes even if you might not
want to use this license. You are required to provide the source code
upon demand at no or minimal cost even if the practical cost is
relatively prohibitive. GPLv3 strips you of the legal right to protect
your copyrights via technical mechanisms. You cannot distribute under
non-disclosure. Any patents you may have regarding the GPL'd work are
automatically licensed to those who receive the GPL'd work.
I too have contributed to GPL software. The price I paid was assigning
my copyright to the FSF and being stabbed in the back by Stallman's
cronies. That experience was neither empowering nor liberating.
I help them use free software and I sell my time and expertise.
Then you're not selling software. You're selling your time and
expertise. In common parlance: technical support.
--
Rich P.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
