In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get
>> a program for nothing.
>I was talking about a profit for seller
You were pretending to answer David Kastrup's very reasonable comment:
We
mike4ty4 writes:
> But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me, "decent"
> does *not* mean "Bill Gates" super-wealth)
Most programmers spend their time writing custom code that never leaves
their organization so the whole issue is irrelevant to them.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROT
mike4ty4 writes:
> I take original code O and combine it with MORE original code P. Then do
> I have to distribute O+P under GPL as well even though it contains _no_
> code of 3rd party origin? You seem to say yes but everyone else seems to
> have said no.
He is also saying no.
Really, just read
Are you saying then that I CANNOT use the original code that was in
the combined work in other original works that contain NOBODY
else's code without also making those GPL as well?!
Sighs, it has been said by four people by now, me included: you retain
all the rights to your code! Period
I suggest you completely and utterly ignore anything Alexander says.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
> >> also make use of a lot of existing software.
> >
> > But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
> > "decent" does *not*
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> So then you are saying I _can't_ then use the stuff in the
>_original parts_ of said combined work in other projects without
>making those GPL as well, after releasing the combined work? Why
>must that be done if the original parts are still original?
>
> They
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
>> also make use of a lot of existing software.
>
> But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
> "decent" does *not* mean "Bill Gates" super-wealth)
Linus
David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Because we cannot force people to make all their source code
> > available, it is done by having a license that says you can use the
> > free program components in your program provided that you also make
> > that entire program free & GPL not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > If you want to "charge" for something perhaps "dollars" or "euros"
> > or similar items could be required.
>
> You don't understand the GNU "philosophy", mike4ty4.
>
> Read the GNU Manifesto.
>
> -
> "Won't everyone stop programmi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code
> >be released and that's what I mean by "open-source".
> >
> > Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open
> > Source movement. They are two di
Richard writes:
> There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get a
> program for nothing.
They get a copy of the program (what they want) for whatever price they and
one of the supliers thereof agree on. There is no GPL "no charge"
provision where copies are concerned.
--
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
>> Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
>> will probably remain your secret.
>
> Google also had an IPO, stupid.
Alex
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per GPL "no charge" provision)
> >
> > seller's cost to create = programmer's salary, energy, etc.
> >
> >So where is a profit, dak?
Profit = buyer's c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per GPL "no charge" provision)
>
> seller's cost to create = programmer's salary, energy, etc.
>
>So where is a profit, dak?
There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free
>>>license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you
>>>any.
>> Very likely, but it's not so important that I'm going to go
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
> Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
> will probably remain your secret.
Google also had an IPO, stupid.
>
> If it has not escaped you,
http://www.linuxjournal.com
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
>>>Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free
>>>license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you
>>>any.
>>
>> Very likely, but it's not so important that I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
>>Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free
>>license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you
>>any.
>
> Very likely, but it's not so important that I'm going to go to great
> lengths about it. It
Myself and others in FSFE have made transcripts of five of Stallman's GPLv3
talks, two of Moglen's, and one of an excerpt where Alan Cox talks about
GPLv3. They're all here:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/#transcripts
The freshest of these is from the 4th international conference in In
David Kastrup wrote:
> I wouldn't bother if you rerelease as GPL anyway. Just follow the
> step 3 and you are set.
Great. Thankyou both, and sorry I didn't see this option myself.
Help muchly appreciated, now I can continue coding. :)
--
--jude hungerford.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
>> is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
>
> It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
> lic
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
> is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
licensing basics. Ignorant retard. Try
http://investor.goog
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you claim that they were not profitable? How then did they survive
>> and expand?
>
> IPO scam.
Well, you have to have a business before making an IPO entry. And
RedHat is still positioned pretty well on the sto
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So you claim that they were not profitable? How then did they survive
> and expand?
IPO scam.
Red Hat abandoned retail market in mid fiscal 2004, IIRC.
Now, here's the data (in thousands, fiscal, restated):
1997: net LOSS1318 (-)
1998: net LOSS3738 (-)
199
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Last time I looked, one could not make much use of a WORK without
>> obtaining a copy previously.
>
> And you obtain it from the net or a friend for free.
Before you can obtain it, it has to exist. The creator of GP
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, one could not make much use of a WORK without
> obtaining a copy previously.
And you obtain it from the net or a friend for free. Free-riders like
centos aside for a moment.
>
> > Nobody in his right mind will buy multiple copies if one can buy
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
>> >
>> > Okay?
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> > Now we take the case with distribution of new (we are now going to
>> > create) derivative work of something
lichen678 wrote:
[...]
> I don't entirely follow the legalese,
That's because it's Stallmanese, not legalese. But anyway, according
to the FSF itself, one must convert that LGPL'd stuff to GPL per LGPL
Section 3 in order to use that stuff "combined"/"linked" with GPL'd
stuff. So the LGPL is i
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
> >
> > Okay?
>
> Ok.
>
> > Now we take the case with distribution of new (we are now going to
> > create) derivative work of something under the GPL:
> >
> >buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
> >> That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
> >
> > Hey stupid dak, "_obey_ his lice
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
>
> The marginal cost of creating a copy of a piece of software is close enough
> to zero as makes no difference. And it is a _copy_ that the seller buys.
Seller buys no
"lichen678" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please redirect me if I'm posting in the wrong place:
>
> I am writing GPL code.
>
> I want to use pieces of code from LGPL libraries.
>
> I would prefer not to distribute the entire library when I only need a
> few modules. So I have been stripping out th
33 matches
Mail list logo
