From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-14 05:52:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:52:27 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3F3B860B.3040502@noplace.com> References: <3F367B39.8060108@noplace.com> <1060611604.45048@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F38DEBC.8040208@noplace.com> <1060696097.54858@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F3A306D.4050302@noplace.com> <1060785619.779768@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.a5.18.a7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 14 Aug 2003 12:54:48 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41441 Date: 2003-08-14T12:54:48+00:00 List-Id: One more time... with feeling. :-) This has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Yes, the developers *did* give their permission. *No* they have no right to complain having done so. *Yes* RedHat is totally within its rights and hasn't done anything wrong. The *point* is, a body of software developed by one party has *value* and that if it is used by another party in a for-profit venture, the other party is getting a contribution to his business without any compensation being given to the author. Why that isn't plainly obvvious to even the most casual observer, I don't know. What the GPL does to somehow or other stop the software contribution from having value, I don't know. The software has value. You use it to make a profit. You give nothing to the author. It isn't illegal when its under the GPL. It doesn't defraud the original developer who voluntarily gave away his valuable property to you in the first place. It simply means that the developer wasn't compensated when the developer had every moral right to have insisted on it had he not voluntarily done some charity work for your business venture. Like I said elsewhere, people have an absolute God-given right to freely do charity work for business ventures if they so choose. I'd question the wisdom of that and wouldn't do so myself, because my work has value and if you want to use it to make money, you'll have to share it with me. But that's just me. ;-) MDC Hyman Rosen wrote: > The difference is that the bands you mention didn't give anyone > permission to do this, while the software developers did. But > you know that, obviously, so what is your purpose in drawing this > analogy? Are you trying to say that the developers didn't give > this permission? That they were duped? All of them? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================