On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:27:03PM +0100, iain d broadfoot wrote: > * Bijan Soleymani (bijan@psq.com) wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > > > > > > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a > > > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of > > > > it after you quit working for them. > > > > > > > > > > Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you > > > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice. > > > > If they didn't care about closed version they wouldn't use the GPL. > > This is broken logic. > > The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL piece > of software being developed. It's not nothing. Let's say half the users use the FSF/GPL version and half use the closed version. The FSF has just lost half its users. By the FSF's theory half the users have lost their freedom. > If GPL'd(GPLed? which is less stoopid?) _code_ was used, that'd be a > different issue though. Agreed that is a different issue. I don't mean to speak for the FSF again but I can't see how they wouldn't prefer for there not to be a closed version. I mean the whole essence of the FSF seems to be to make Free Software, and encourage people to make Free Software. Bijan
Attachment:
pgpn8qb74J04F.pgp
Description: PGP signature