Re: [circle] GPL Violation - no I wont

[Jiri Baum]

Hello,

David Irvine:
> Many thanks for your comments and honesty. I wont discuss the ins and
> outs of the pricing model, I have been in business for many years and
> can easily do break even analysis, its really for me to work it out and
> if I went bust doing it, that's my issue.

No worries. If you have both business and computing/networking experience, 
then that's good. You never claimed such in your first post, and in itself it 
didn't inspire much confidence...

(in another post)
> Does that mean like me (I am getting this way) you lean more towards the
> bsd licence as completely Open Source do what you want as opposed to
> closed proprietary  do nothing you want to gpl do anything you want as
> long as nobody commercialises it for any reason.

No, that is not what darkblood said; in fact, he said the opposite.

I quote: "[...] I am a Free Software advocate.  [...]  there is a fundamental 
difference between FS and OS."

> You see I feel theres got to be a middle ground between the GPL and
> closed licenses that works better.

Possibly, but nobody's found it yet. So far, all known methods for 
distributing payment for programming entail such distortions of the 
programming process that the result is worse than in the GPL model.

The option you suggested - initially closed, later open - has been tried, 
notably by ghostscript, and is included in the above analysis.

> Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time to
> time 

Cite?

> On the issue of using the code, I wont at all. 

Thank you.


Jiri
-- 
Jiri Baum <address@hidden>                   http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
  MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools