Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:00:11PM -0400, Paula Paul wrote:
> > Oh, come one now - there's nothing in the GPL that disallows you from
> > charging for your work - they only ensure that such work as you do is
> > merged back into a publicly available source code base. You can charge
> > to redistribute any GPLd software you want, as long as you provide the
> > source. Read the GPL.
> 
> What this means (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the code I
> write will be publicly available, free of charge, and gee, I'm allowed
> to sell it too.  So, people don't pay for the software, they pay for the
> packaging and the cost of distribution.  I don't like the idea that the
> code I write is worthless, but I can charge for the cost of distribution
> and for service contracts.

Only if you release it under the GPL, or use GPL'd code as part of your
product. Of course, you could use the LGPL to cover libraries you use,
which isn't "viral" like the GPL, and doesn't "infect" code you wish to
retain as proprietary, closed, and generally unavailable to the rest of
us, as is your right.

> > > Call me a capitalist, but I'd like to remain a professional, paid,
> > > software developer, and want to retain the choice of licensing my
> > > work when I want to and however I want to.
> > 
> > You still retain those rights - nobody's saying you don't. But if you
> > "stand on the shoulders" of other software developers' work, 
> > you should
> > not be able to then incorporate their work into a closed, proprietary
> > product without making your work available to others as well - just as
> > they made their work available to you.
> 
> Of course, I would never stand on anyone's shoulders and disrespect
> their rights (so I never incorporate GPL'd code in products).  It seems
> a little far reaching to me though that the GPL extends to my code as
> well as the GPL'd code I may use in my product.  It devalues some work,
> and overvalues other work.  For instance, if I use someone's random
> number generator in my product that solves the problem of cold fusion, I
> have to GPL my code, when I got very little value from the shoulders I
> stood on.  

So, in that case, use the LGPL if you're going to use other people's
libraries in your own proprietary code. I don't see why you're so
outraged.
 
> I'm more than willing to distribute the source code of the random number
> generator for free, and give GNU all the credit for it.  I just don't
> want them distributing the source code for my cold fusion program -
> that's my intellectual property.  If I take this 'free software'
> approach literally, my source code is worthless, and I'm supposed to
> make my living selling service contracts.  I still don't get it.

That's because you haven't bothered to do any research into the kinds
of licenses available for your use, and have apparently denied
yourself potential opportunities to save time, money, and maintenance
costs by insisting on writing your own code when it's possible that
other code exists that does it better. But hey, like I've been saying
all along, it's your choice. There's no jackboot army waiting to
publish your code after breaking down your door and confiscating your
computer.

Not that *I* know of, anyway. :)

-- 
"Euphoria is not a business strategy" -- Louis Rossetto