Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Dec 2005 19:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 74751
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2005-10-08
"Btw, the bsd license is more open than gpl and so is the cddl, i'm shocked by the fact that people dont seem to realize that"
Well, the bsd license is more open. But what the GPL people don't like about that is that it allows a third party to take BSD code, make some changes, close source it, and sell it as commercial software without providing source code or giving redistribution rights. So in effect, the BSD license allows code stealing.
My ideal license would be something along the following:
You may redistribute this in source or binary form as long as you are not making a profit from it in any way. If you are making a profit from it, you are required to compensate the original author of the code with a certain percentage of royalties.
This way companies like Red Hat would not be able to parasatize on the community under the guise of "We aren't selling Linux. We are selling support for Linux", when the simple reality is that without the efforts of an army of volunteer programmers, they wouldn't have anything to sell support for.
I don't like the fact that thousands of people are doing the work, while only a few are actually getting paid for it. In a truly egalitarian community, either everyone who contributed work should see financial gain, or no one at all should.