Let's not be like Alex and argue legal semantics. The way that the GPL is structured creates a situation where the monetary value of distributed software tends to work its way towards $0.
This has nothing to do with semantics, a license that does not allow being used in commercial products is not a free software licenese and thus is not acceptable. There is no semantics involved, just freedom. The GPL, LGPL, and _any_ free software can be used in commercial products. So to say that GPL software can be used commercially in the same mode as traditional closed source commercial software is disingenuous. Much if not all (I do not keep track which program subjugates which of your or my freedoms) non-free software cannot be used commercially, you cannot charge a fee for the act of distributing Windows, which is a non-free program for example. Again, this has nothing to do with semantics, but about basic rights of a computer user. Note that folks like Red Hat use trademark enforcement to embed inherent monetary value, and associated redistribution restrictions, to their software packages. Trademark doesn't come into play here. If one could copy and redistribute an unmodified Redhat enterprise CD, trust me that folks would do so. You can download RedHat GNU/Linux Enterprise edition from RedHat's FTP site. This isn't a sematics debate. I'm not Alex. I'm a GPL advocate trying to get useful information to people. When giving people useful information, one must correct their mistakes. As a GPL advocate you should know that one of the major misconceptions about the GPL is that it is supposedly not allowed to use GPL programs in commercially. And as a GPL advocate, you should do your outmost to make this mist of confusion vanish. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
