|
|
|
|
|
|
by nknighthb
4106 days ago
|
|
|
> My point is about the clause in the GPL that enforces developers to enclose the source of their entire software, not just the library. I'm well aware of it. Everybody is. It's a term of the license. Just like "You must pay us $5000 to use this library" would be. > And lets not nitpick here, the GPL isn't exactly subtle about these things. Nitpick about what? Subtle about what? What are you talking about? > No. It's their right to choose whatever license they wish, but it's also my right to not choose their software. It certainly is. But you said it's "bad". But it wouldn't be "bad" if they hadn't made it available under a free license at all. This seems like a hypocritical and extremely entitled attitude. Under what moral code is it bad to offer alternative prices for alternative terms? |
|
|
The clause I mentioned. I'm sorry if I was ambigious, but there were discussions in the past hovering about how the GPL still allows commercial software, and such. Yes, of course the GPL allows you to make good money, but in just about every example given, the actual bulk of the money isn't made from the software, but from the hardware the software just so happens to be running on (i.e., modems, smartphones, branded computers, mainframes, chipcards, etc).
> Under what moral code is it bad to offer alternative prices for alternative terms?
By claiming to offer Free Software™ with a very restrictive copyleft license with one hand, and expecting a 3-4 figure with the other in case you plan to use it on anything else than free software.
It's a little bit like imprisoning someone for their own safety, and expecting money if they wish to breath a little air.
I never claimed that there's anything wrong with the GPL/AGPL, but I do claim that there are cases where the GPL is a good choice, and then there are cases where it is not.