[Linux4christians] Weighing In on the Freespire Debate

[Rob Matlack]

On Wed May 10 2006 10:23, AKAImBatman wrote:
> Stallman's intentions for the GPL are documented here:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
>
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."

Rob Matlack