[Linux4christians] Weighing In on the Freespire Debate
rmatlack at alexandria.cc
Wed May 10 14:54:20 EDT 2006
On Wed May 10 2006 10:23, AKAImBatman wrote:
> Stallman's intentions for the GPL are documented here:
Thanks for the link. After having read it I still am apparently missing
something. While the license does not prohibit charging for software, doesn't
the last phrase in the following quote make it in reality impossible? "The
license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software
as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from
several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other
fee for such sale."
Matthew Lewis said "most of the best software I've used costs money, and is
unrivaled by any open source options. (Firefox, of course, being one notable
exception, along with a few others.) ... If someone puts a lot of hard work
into developing an application, don't they deserve to be paid for their work
if they so choose?" I can't speak for software in general, but I think this
is a good point for an application like BibleWorks. Michael Bushell has
devoted a good part of his life to producing the best original language
exegetical software available for scholars, pastors, missionaries, and Bible
translators. I just don't see how this could be done any other way. And what
about the expensive reference works like BDAG and HALOT? These could never be
available under the open software definition, could they?
Again I agree with Matthew: "I can understand the feeling against Microsoft,
what with their shady business practices and "crush-the-opposition"
mentality. But I have nothing against most other software developers who
would just like to make a living with their work - or even those who would
like to get wealthy with their work."
More information about the Linux4christians