From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-29 10:05:55
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>> Martin Schulz wrote:
>>> If you want to release your code a open source but reserve commercial
>>> uses to your own, you may choose the GPL
>> The GPL perfectly allows commercial use. It's just that it may not be
> Not so according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook
> ("Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born 1948) is Chief Judge of the United
> States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Right, it is easy enough to find people to make your point. And the more
popular an opinion is the easier it gets.
> "Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the
> Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the
> creation of derivative works
> --and the license prohibits charging for the
> derivative work.
Not correct, or at best, misleading.
> People may make and distribute derivative works if and
> only if they come under the same license terms as the original work.
I'd just like to point out that "to charge for someone's work" is a
somewhat ambiguous term. People have certain conceptions of how economy
works, and thus, that changes to economic relationships as imposed by
the GPL are hard to grasp, as it requires people to adjust their
preconceptions. That's always challenging.
There are numerous companies that seem to be able to commercialize on
Free Software (for example by not charging for the software as a
product, but the work on it as a service). Thus, it would be more
appropriate to talk about proprietary use, as opposed to commercial use.
Sorry for the off-topic post. I won't further engage into this discussion.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk