Re: License Choice
- From: Bal Oney <bal@xxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:10:30 -0500
hutch-- wrote:
> Different system have different advantages but they need to be
> understood. There is no effective difference between commercial
> freeware and GPL freeware at the end user level but at a programmer
> level there is a great difference.
>
Yes, I understand that if your livelihood depends on charging for the
use of software then the GPL is not acceptable. All I'm saying is if
the goal is that neither programmers nor users should ever have to pay
to use your code then the GPL or LGPL is the logical choice.
> Freeware respects the right of ownership where GPL takes ownership of
> your code if you want to distribute it. The gripe I have with the form
> of the GPL licence is the attempt at TERM REDEFINITION in its preamble
> to hide or confuse the real situation of who owns the code once it is
> distributed.
>
The GPL does not change the ownership of code, it is a license only and
what you create will always remain yours. My particular view is that
users are just as important to open source as programmers and deserve
protection against being charged to use free software.
.
- References:
- License Choice
- From: Bal Oney
- Re: License Choice
- From: hutch--
- License Choice
- Prev by Date: Re: Why there are so many assemblers.
- Next by Date: Re: OT:Some thoughts
- Previous by thread: Re: License Choice
- Next by thread: Re: License Choice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|