On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:43:28PM +0800, Katipo wrote: > Maybe it'd be an idea to put in a bug report to the crew drawing up the > new GPL agreement, and request that in the growing incidence of this > sort of arrangement happening, that an itemised invoice is issued in > order to ensure ethical trading.
Ugh. I believe if they do make the GPL too nitpicky and legalistic, it will badly hurt the free software movement, certainly more than a few people taking advantage of "loopholes". And I say this as a Free Software Foundation member and someone about to release a large amount of code under the GPL. I'm still debating whether to do like Linus, and say *only* GPL v2, or the default GPL, which is to allow any future revision. I'm wary of that, because I don't really trust that 50 years from now the GPL is still going to reflect my values. I think I can count on the GPL being backwards-compatible, certainly if it's not that will also help to make it irrelevant. Because it will be backwards compatible, I don't see any major problems with saying "only version 2". > I have noobjection to anybody charging for hardware, labour time, or > anything else that they may have bought and are in the process of onselling. > It is this factor that predetermines possession, and the ethical > transactional status. But I would object to anybody appropriating Debian as > *their* possession, putting on what would have to be an exorbitant markup, > and in this way, 'profiting' by it. This is misappropriation, pure and > simple. Anything else is intellectual ninjutsu, which can be somewhat > mentally damaging. I don't see what the problem with this is. If people are stupid enough to pay a billion trillion dollars for the simulation code I've written, well they're stupid and that's fine. As long as the seller follows the rules of the license I use, good for them for making money off of gullible idiots. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
