[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU "Moral Codes"

From: mike3
Subject: Re: GNU "Moral Codes"
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:20:10 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Aug 21, 4:08 pm, David Kastrup <> wrote:
> mike3 <> writes:
> > It seems the GNU licenses are designed so you can't just monopolize
> > off someone else's work -- rip it off and pilfer it for your profit,
> > which is what incorporating it into a proprietary package without
> > making that free would do.
> Wrong.  I'd say you have been reading too many of Linus Torvalds'
> rants: that is his opinion as well.

Haven't read a single one.

> The GPL is not a "tit for tat" license: the upstream author gets
> nothing from the recipient by defaul, nor does he have any right to.
> But any further downstream recipients get all the rights the GPL
> guarantees.  The GPL ensures that no recipient gets crippled software,
> software which can't be serviced.  It is the software engineering
> equivalent of placing good schematics inside of any sold appliance.
> So the GPL is "tat for tat" rather than "tit for tat": it is not
> reciprocal but seminal.

Oh, so you can go and profit off of the other person's work,
that it stays free and GPL. I was meaning trying to make it
And was agreeing that that was an obvious no-no.

> > This may be good, but what is the GNU position on monopolizing or
> > reaping a profit off licensing your OWN work?
> You have to distinguish here between the stance of the GNU project in
> general, the subset of the effects and goals that the GPL codifies,
> and the FSF's and Richard Stallman's personal convictions, and those
> have changed over time as well.

What is the stance of those on this issue, anyway?

> I recommend that you read the GNU manifesto.  It should tell you
> something.

Hmm. I noticed this on the GNU Manifesto page:

"In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-
scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make
a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that
are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a
week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot
repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to
make a living from programming."

But would there be other businesses in such a world that would have
such as low a starting capital as programming? See that's what it
comes down to. Or would in that world, high starting capital not be
a problem since everyone would have enough money for it?

> --

> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]