Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2005 15:31 schrieb John: > I suppose the point I was trying to make is that this is a very very > commercial world and I am not sure that the gpl offers authors sufficient > protection from it. I think that's up to these very authors. If they don't feel protected enough then they should use a different license. But take kdelibs or GTK for example: They're both using the more permissive LGPL and thus make even closed-source apps possible (for Qt there's the dual-licensing). That doesn't look to me like authors feeling they're not "protected" enough. It seems they are fine with the rules of the game. > As to making the source available and acknowledgement I'm > not sure that it achieves anything. How many windoze users for instance are > interested in the source? They are only interested in the package. The same > thing will happen with Linux as the user base grows. That doesn't change anything. It is *possible* to get and modify the source, and no one can take that away. No one can monopolise the code. People interested in the code can work with it, people with additional software requirements can pay developers for new features. You can't do that with proprietary software. That's one of the main points Open Source is about. It's not about preventing commercial success though. > So why should some individuals profit on the hard work of > others? If armorware doesn't add real value that is worth $485 to their potential customers then they won't make any profit. If they do then they deserve what they earn. Christian.
Attachment:
pgpNvCumWrFPJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___________________________________________________ . Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde. Archives: http://lists.kde.org/. More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
