On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:06:35 -0400, David wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gunnstein Lye wrote: > > > The GPL does not prohibit selling, and does not say anything about > > how much they can charge, as long as any changes they have made are > > made available for free (or the cost of the medium and postage). > > The GPL also contains requirements to make the source code available > to customers, and to release the source to any modifications you've > made to a distributed version. ..2 easy ways they can do that under the GPL: 0.) include our and their source on the media they sell, and the preferred 1.) put it online somewhere and point us too to the url, so we too can use their good tweaks. > Personally, I appreciate the historical importance of the GPL, but I'm > not much of a fan now that we have better licenses available. ..bull, any license that has Microsoft wet their pants, is _good_, just go check http://groklaw.net. ;-) ..you've bought too much of ESR's pragmatism on commersialists, it's all about doing the right thing, not because it may appear more or less idealistic, but because it is right thing to do, and, heh, as you can see in Groklaw and in the market place, it turns out to be more profitable in the long run too. ;-) > The only real benefit of the GPL these days is for companies who want > to make money by dual licensing (since the GPL is too restrictive for > many users). ..how? I don't see how the mysql people profits more than they would have going GPL-only. (Except for the 1990-ish pragmatism hook.) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
