[Discuss] Profiting from GPL software

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 11/11/2015 10:59 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> So you object to contributing to software when you have to agree to the
> pre-existing license of said software?

Yes. Contributing to GPL projects is not contributing to the common 
good. It's only contributing to GPL projects. The common good includes 
*BSD which cannot use code licensed under the GPL.

> Contributor is not the same as Distributor

A contributor distributes his changes to others even if the others are 
themselves distributors.

> GPLv3 was created in order to combat Digital Restrictions.  Again,
> contributors to GPL'd software do so to retain, and protect their liberty,
> not to lock it down and restrict it technically.

At the expense of my freedom to protect my rights.

> AFAIK, private 'sharing' (non-disclosure) is not distribution, but we were
> discussing the role of contributors rather than distributors.
> Non-disclosure wouldn't even BE contributing.

See previous about contributor == distributor.

> This is a liberating and freedom defending aspect of the GPL.  It makes
> software about solutions rather than lawyers.  It makes contributions into
> gifts rather than sneaky backdoor extortion schemes.

It's denying me some of my legal rights to my patents (if I had any).

You asked what is onerous and burdensome about the GPL. Theses are some 
examples. Perhaps you don't find them onerous and burdensome. I do.


> I've met Richard Stallman on many occasions and have yet to be stabbed,
> even in Cambridge, MA where many of these alleged cronies must lie in wait
> to stab contributors.  I felt perfectly safe every occasion.

Someone fails to understand the concept of metaphor.

-- 
Rich P.