Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Peter S Galbraith > > Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Scripsit Peter S Galbraith > > > > Colin Watson wrote: > > > > > > the Cyrus licence seeks to restrict commercial use to let them make m > ore > > > > > money. The intents aren't really that similar. > > > > > They don't want to limit commercial _use_, they want to limit > > > > commercially sold derived products > > > > And by wanting to limit commercially sold derived products, they fail > > > DFSG #1. Freedom of software also means the freedom to sell. > > > But not sell closed-close. You missed my point. > > I did not miss it. I pointed out that you were wrong.
Here we go! > > > Their exceptions are not limited to closed-source deriviates. > > > But it could be. > > Hypothetically it could, yes. In fact it isn't. Again, you missed my point. Yes, you did. Or you plainly chose to ignore it. > > Permitting the sale of GPLed derived products > > That is not what they are doing. The statement of intentions that were > quoted earlier in this thread said that they want to prevent people from > selling deriviative works, period. Nothing about closed-source. Okay, read carefully now... The GPL was proposed to them as a solution to their licensing goal. Sure, they say nothing about closed-source or open-source in their goals. But few corporation are in business of selling GPLed applications for big bucks, since the first client can redistribute it for free under the terms of the GPL. So, effectively, using the GPL can achieve their goal to prevent commercial resale of derived products for big bucks (because those wouldn't be under the GPL anyway). Quit being so picky about what they said and try to rationalize their goals. I'll listen to valid criticism of the above, but I'll ignore any reply that simply says `No, you are wrong'. Peter
