Les Mikesell wrote:
Explain the problem. If it is for his/her own use, then he is an end user. The company is also an end user, and because the source is available, they can afford to develop custom code. It is just the developer that wants to take GPL protected code, modify it, and sell it that faces restrictions. In the cases you list, the GPL does not make it more or less likely that the code will be released.Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:Maybe that is because you are looking at it as a developer, and not as an end user. It is the freedom of the end users that is being preserved.You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power, and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is freedom.No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.No, that is exactly backwards. Since the GPL only prohibits redistribution, a developer is perfectly free to combine components as he wants for his own use. Or companies that can afford it can hire a developer to do this in custom code that is not redistributed. It's the end users that aren't developers and can only afford things distributed at mass market prices that lose any chance of benefits. They just never even see it.
Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
