You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo".
Another way of stating it might be "same for same".
A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never
said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole
point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!
I do *not* ask for hardware access.
I do *not* ask for money.
And the reason I'm harping on "money" is that "money" is something
*different* from what I give out. I give out software. I don't
expect money in return.
Money is *irrelevant*. It's allowed (and certainly much
appreciated), but it's not required.
See? Can you agree with that? Can you agree that that is actually part of
what the whole "open source" spirit is all about (I'll avoid the word
"free software", since you have defined it so rigorously personally that
it makes no sense any more).
Now, replace "money" with "access to the hardware", and read the exact
*same* sentences again:
And the reason I'm harping on "access to hardware" is that "access
to hardware" is something *different* from what I give out. I give
out software. I don't expect access to hardware in return.
Access to hardware is *irrelevant*. It's allowed (and certainly
much appreciated), but it's not required.
See?
Exact same words. Exact same spirit. Just using "access to hardware"
instead of "money".
You have been showing that you have a really hard time understanding that
very *simple* argument.
If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say:
"You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself
to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view".
The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing. It's why apparently
a lot of people in the US have a hard time believing in evolution. Are
they terminally stupid? Yeah, that is quite possible. But it is also
possible that they are of average intelligence, and they just cannot
mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys the silyl stories
they heard as children, and requires them to think too hard about the
veracity of the source.
Linus
PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of
"tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an
even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with
forgiveness".
In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when
there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound
familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always
retaliate!
So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not
into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive
strikes".
That is a *LOSING* strategy in game theory. So a game theorist could very
well argue with good reason to believe he is right that the GPLv3 is
actually a worse license even from a purely theoretical standpoint!
-
