On Sat December 10 2005 08:31, John wrote:
> 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. As to making the source available and acknowledgement
> I'm not sure that it achieves anything.
Software developers who GPL their work are (or should be) fully aware of what
the license can and cannot do for them. They accept the common consequence
that they will not be paid for their work. If someone wants to be paid one
can choose from the plenty of licenses and software companies. This situation
underscores in legal terms that GPL is not about individual profit but
community work, and many, many developers embrace it.
Mike.
> 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. From what I hear
> it is growing daily. So why should some individuals profit on the hard work
> of others? I'm not suggesting that the authors should be payed but that
> maybe some organisation aught to be funded in some way who's sole aim is to
> look after their interests.
> Regards
> John
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
