> We must prefer a permissive licence for something that needs to be > integrated with software, and compete with proprietary software (like > codecs), in order for people and developers to use it and promote it > at the best without restrictions. > > But for anything else that doesn't work "inside" anything (like a > software, a game etc...) then the GPL licence is the best for Copyleft > work.
Libraries work "inside". Using GPL for the GNU Readline library resulted in at least one complex program being freed. The FSF doesn't recommend using permissive licenses for libraries that don't replace existing nonfree software (codecs do this indirectly; http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html is the source for this opinion). > If I remember right, in the freedom for distributing the software, > anyone that had access to the software (by buying it for example) can > sell it, and do almost anything with the code but respecting the GPL > Licence (and by this I mean, not adding something not GPL, or changing > the licence, or not distributing the changes if those were made and > became public as a binary). So my question is, what is your opinion > (as an enterprise), about people having the right for selling your > work at a lower price (and this even if you software is already very > cheap) ? It is possible to receive money from works that can be sold by others, see e.g. http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/11/15/frequently-asked-questions/ for an example. I don't know similar numbers for software (the FSF and RMS before sold tapes with GNU programs). There are other ways to get money for writing software; probably all are hindered by that software not being known. > This is (in my opinion) a very interesting discussion. I had one today > with a friend that doesn't share the same views, and believes that GPL > licence is inappropriate for games since it is a different world from > the "software world", and even if he understands and respects most of > the GPL Freedoms, he doesn't agree with the freedom for any other > person to resell the software, because for him, it is like if anyone > would take our GPL code and make it under closed sources (almost). It was discussed here before, software freedoms are useful and needed also for game software. For game art these freedoms are difficult to apply, although IMO it's probable that someone in next 100+ years when it will be copyrighted will make a practical use for it. Free culture advocates have arguments unrelated to software freedom for sharing such works.
pgpOZCiN5In4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
