[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question

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
> 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.  

Reply to: