On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license.
Question (but see below also):
Why was/is that a mistake?
At
first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software,
proprietary for proprietary
Ok,
now we come to a point, please read below.
Angelo
Arandir wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to
Hi,
I commented below.
Bernard Lang wrote:
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
By granting them shares.
- how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 01:55:54PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
Hi,
I commented below.
Bernard Lang wrote:
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
By granting them shares.
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to gain profit:
he has to share his profit with me
b) One uses my source
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
- how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?
- it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with
and
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
That is part of the definition of free software: users must be allowed
to run it without having to pay for permission. That includes all
users,
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to gain profit:
he has to share his profit with me
b) One uses my source to derive work:
he has to chare his work with
Justin Wells wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often
doesn't prefer
Hi,
please RMS, if you quote me and you draw conclusions, please
quote everything, than its easyer to correlate what I said and ment
in relation what you quoted.
Propably, (you remember 'free' verus 'for free/free beer') you are
not aware that many people on that lists are not native english
It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined
with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.
Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
what
ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".
...
In fact I prefer a community
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 03:39:21PM -0700, Reto Stamm wrote:
Derek J. Balling wrote:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
"Free", in today's society, when attached to
Derek J. Balling wrote:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
"Free", in today's society, when attached to hardware, will have lots of
confusion when it comes to things like
13 matches
Mail list logo
