chefren wrote:
> On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
>> This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

quoted text
>> You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes

>> in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them

>> from posting it on the internet and everybody else

>> getting it for free?

>

> You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every

> programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in

> that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't

> matter to him.

>

> Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his

> creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer

> may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that.

>

> Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer

> should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little

> feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask

> a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the

> moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too.

> Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little

> feature to get money for it.

>

> This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why

> money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let

> people earn money.

I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with

regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general.
The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the

recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software

as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. To

accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's

what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of

software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify

it as they desire. It is only once they decide to *further distribute*

the software that they are restricted. At that point the only

restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby

giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider.
No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your

software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they

are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the

recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to

change it and distribute it as they see fit.
While that *can* present a situation where you sell software to PERSON_A

and PERSON_A distributes the code to whomever they choose, it's a

perfectly reasonable assumption that that is not likely to occur in a

high-end software field because no corporation or organization will want

to give away something for which they had to pay top dollar.
Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a

final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases

under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under

the GPL.
In no way is anyone saying "you can't make a comfortable living writing

code" and that you have to go through life as a beggar.
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that anyone should use the GPL

over another license. When I talk about releasing code under the GPL in

previous paragraphs I am speaking for hypothetical situations. I have

only been involved with GPL software for a limited time, 4-5 years, so

my understanding of GPL/v2 may be incorrect.
kmw
-- 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes