"Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list account)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> If someone makes a major improvement to something, but loses control
> because it is a derivative work, it makes no sense to make that
> improvement. They loose the rights and rewards that go along with
> that work.
Not true.
You know what you are getting into when you modify GPLed code.
“Ignorance [of the GPL] is no excuse” — it is your obligation to read
and understand the license of the software you are working with.
You don't lose “control” or “rights” to software that you never had.
If you modify code with the intent to distribute it without the source —
and discover that it was GPLed, the fault is yours, not the copyright
holder's.
And if it “makes no sense to make that improvement” then that
improvement will never be made and projects like Gnome, Emacs, etc, will
cease exist.
That major GPL projects seem to outnumber major permissively-licensed
projects shows the error of your logic. That is, plenty of programmers
must see some sense in working on GPLed software.
We know what the GPL is. If it is so obviously against everyone's
interest to work with GPLed software, why does it prosper?
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/13/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST