Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes:
Moritz Sinn wrote:
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software.
As others have explained, paying for programming doesn't have to mean royalties per copy. Quite a few who make money with programming free software are probably in this list, so making such a broad statement in public, telling us that it's impossible to do what we just do, seems a bit silly ...
ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software. and that's what i meant when i said you have to decide whether its about software or money. if money is the main goal of course closed source is more successfull. if its about the software, the art, the joy of programming what so ever.. free software is the better.
i think we should be honest with that. free software is about the software and when it comes to business it has many disadvantages. that doesn't mean that we have to write closed software, it means that there is something wrong with business, because free software is better, which doesn't mean that closed software can also be very good out of the technical point of view.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
There are many cases of GPL-dual-licensing. One of the most prominent ones is Perl. As I saw your directory on CPAN, I thought you might have known that ... ;-)
ok, i thought perl would have its own license but i would be allowed to publish my perl modules under which ever license i want.
regards, moritz