On 9/7/06, jtd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:29 pm, Mohan Nayaka wrote:
>
> Hi all
> Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is
> permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that
> selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have
> access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of
> the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a
> copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the
> GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ?
Are u trolling?.
No intention at all of trolling.
But i'll let that pass once.
Thanks
NEVER use the term viral. A virus infects you without your consent.
when u use gpld software i presume you read the licence which is clear
about what u do and dont do with that piece of code.
So it is NOT VIRAL.
By "viral" i only meant that aspect of GPL which requires any derived
work to be distributed with the source code. yes, "viral" has this negative
association that I didn't think of.
> That is, is the derived work
> non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected
> to the author?
No u dont pay the author anything. You are free to charge whatever u
please without having to pay any one anything.
Thanks for the clarification.
And tell your colleuges to go back to their worm hole if they dont
have the smarts to make a thriving business out of gpld software -
speaks volumes about the shallowness of the code and business model.
You can compare it to matchsticks (or any other commodity) very
useful, simple design, can be made by anyone, can be given away free
too but yet matchsticks is a billion dollar industry.
--
Rgds
JTD
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Regards,
Mohan S N
--
"The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne, the' assay so hard, so sharp
the conqueryinge"
-- Geoffrey Chaucer
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
