Hi SonWon, > Imposing narrow interpretations on the usage of open free software > will kill this movement one day.
Precise interpretations of free software licences haven't killed the `movement' after many years. They would not be much use if imposed in an imprecise manner. > The goal should be to prevent open source code from being used to make > money from your hard work, and to give you credit. I disagree. > The GPL was developed to prevent open source code from being stolen > and resold for commercial gain. It's been a long time since I read about the history of free software but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the primary intent. > If your code is being used for financial gain then this is a violation > of free open software concepts. No it's not. Software released under GNU GPL can directly be used by others for financial gain. > If someone improves the code and shares with the community then great, > if not, no worries. Correct. Private, non-distributed improvements may remain just that. > I don't feel any loss if they don't share their improvements. I do > however feel a loss when they take code that was open and free and > turn it into a money making machine. Cygnus turned GPL'd software into a money-making machine. As have Red Hat. With them the code remained open. > Nit picking every little detail of the GPL over who violated what is > just plain going to destroy this community one day. You wouldn't be referring to my examination of Chad's actions as to whether he met 3(b) when distributing, would you? That's not nit-picking. It's fundamental. Where a violation starts is where it needs to be fixed. > We can see it happening right now, the way we nitpick over who didn't > or did shared when the real focus should be on those who are involved > with making money off of your hard work. Hmm, this is ringing familiar bells. > So called developers are using your code to solicit donations. Valid > developers that freely share their code can't receive credit because > some other comes along and steals their work. Then the thief uses the > stolen code, claims he developed it first, just to solicit more > donations. Real developers that want to share their code are driven > underground. If only the creator had published the source code, or provided a written offer to it, when distributing. Then there would be a mark in the sand to clearly refute the `thief's claims. Instead, you seem to suggest that having one's copyright violated allows one to do the same to many others. It doesn't. Someone nicking my wallet doesn't make me immune from arrest if I become a pickpocket in retaliation. > Stealing your code isn't about one man, one developer, the issues here > are much larger. This is about the future of open source software. > The real thief's are protected and making money off your open source > code. If this continues this will one day destroy open source. This > is all wrong. IMHO you are not going to switch the focus to this. It will remain on Chad's attempted loophole to the GPL v2. You're wasting your time and the many subscribers. Anyone that takes GPL v2'd source, modifies it, and distributes the binary, and therefore their modified source if they're complying, should have read the licence and understand money may be made by others from it. Cheers, Ralph.
