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.
