Mon Jan 23 14:06:28 EST 2006
On 1/23/06, Marco Scoffier <marco at metm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:07:00AM -0800, pete wright wrote:
> >since we are throwing links around today:
> >probably one of the best written explanations regarding GPL's impact
> >from a business perspective IMO.
> "[GPL] requires that any source code that is changed also be released
> free of charge"
> I believe that the "free of charge" is completely misleading. You can
> charge as much as you want, for the software and its source code
> together. You are just required to give your customers the source, so
> that they are not stuck with an unmaintainable product when your company
> dies. That is the deal, you are not required to give your code to
> everyone in the universe free of charge.
You can not charge for the source, you can charge a reasonable fee for
burning a tape though(call it $50 + media). Now what you can charge
for is the binaries that you generated using GPLed code, they are
yours and you can charge what you will for them. But once you have
shipped one copy your customer can demand a copy of the source, which
you must provide, and put it up on source forge for all the world to
> from the second page:
> "donate the code you paid to create to anyone who wants it"
> This is also wrong. You just need to make the source code available to
> those who recieve the product. If you give your product to everyone you
> give the code to everyone. If you sell for $1Million to a single client
> you are required to give that one client the source.
and anyone down stream of that client who also gets the binary.
> I get a little impatient with the way people demonize the GPL by
> twisting words around. Quite frankly I don't give a damn if someone
> uses some BSD-licensed code only to sell me a proprietary product, for
> all I know they have broken it, and I'll be stuck with a lemon I can't
Well I do not demonize the GPL, what I rant about is how the FSF
fucking lies through their collective teeth about the word "FREE".
They have this special definition of the word free that:
1: does not exist in any dictionary I have looked at
2: contradicts the definition that applies from said dictionaries
3: that definition is "with out cost or encumbrance"
> If you think I am mistaken please correct without flaming thank you.
> % NYC*BUG talk mailing list
> %Be sure to check out our Jobs and NYCBUG-announce lists
> %We meet the first Wednesday of the month
"We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to
form into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it
can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion,
inefficiency and demoralization."
-Gaius Petronius, 1st Century AD
More information about the talk