Re: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning
From: Jonathan A. Zdziarski (jonathan_at_nuclearelephant.com)
To: Tim <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:11:12 -0500
> But the author does benefit through increased distribution of code.
Wow. And the distributor benefits through increased profit.
> And, if that little wrapper is an improvement, then it must be
> distributed as code. From that, the author may benefit as well.
Let the author of the wrapper distribute their wrapper without the app
if they're making a profit on it...or work something out with the
> As an author, you can release your code under whatever you want.
True, but if you have a proprietary license instead of a standardized
license, it's unlikely that commercial organizations will touch it (even
the ones you want to).
> The whole point of the GPL is to keep code open now, AND in the future. If
> you want that, then it is perfect for you. In fact, it is almost the
> embodiment of the spirit of original Copyright. Have you ever been
> given a book that allows you to know what was in it, but doesn't show
> you the words? Sound rediculous?
I agree all code should be kept open...but I shouldn't be able to
download someone else's book online and then sell it, now should I?
> And how the hell am I supposed to enforce my copyright on other
> companies if the code they write, under copyright, is only released as
I agree...I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the
open-source aspect of the GPL, only in its licensing for redistribution.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.