Reinhard reinhard.mueller@bytewise.at wrote:
josX wrote:
Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
No, you can't, because the software would not be free if its license prevented that.
Let's do it.
Draft:
This material is hereby released to the public. It is not allowed to be profitting from this material by selling it's use or the material
[...] If Apache had this licence, could I take money for website hosting?
Yes. You are not selling it directly, or selling it use.
If gcc had this licence, could I ever take money for any program I write?
same
If people liked the program, how would I afford to burn as many cd's as people want?
Private money and give it away.
How would I afford to buy webspace to let others download
the program?
Private money and give it away.
Would I have to write proprietary closed-source software to earn the money I need for this "hobby"?
Yes, or you can do something else. This is free software, and you guys who want te make a living from it ar ruining it, because it will end up being some bisnis model. Lot's of people release their stuff and don't see money. /That/ is free(dom/beer) software. The GPL just doesn't fit it very well: it is much too money-oriented.
About me agreeing with RMS: I agree with him when I read the discussions between ESR.... yes, I agree with RMS, and the difference between the /alledged/ position of Linus which is suposedly he doesn't care (don't want to put worth in his mouth here)... yes, then I would go with RMS. But (evidentally) I'm much more radical then RMS.
But then again: am I really that radical when almost all software is given away for nothing, and almost all free-hackers do it for the fun of writing and the knowledge people can use it for free ?
regards, Jos --