On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:44:49 +0100, Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 13:17 +0100, Császár Péter wrote:
The first question I had if I was going to use GPL or not? It because
the copyleft. I don't want to make that program free. It is going to
be an explicit economical system. Why should I make it free? But with
GPL I would have to. This is the reason why the ORACLE could be better
than MS-SQL or Postgree-SQL (which I haven't used yet anyway).
I read the licence possibilities at mysql.com and they offer two kind
of licences. One is the GPL, and the other one is when you should pay.
That's not a way I colud go on. I think you neither.
To object to having to pay for the tools when you want to sell something
made with them, to others, sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
I can understand your view, however this topic can lead us to a contest.
The end point of my the dilemma in this topic is simple. Everybody has to
begin somewhere, everybody have eat something. That is it. One sometimes
can give things freely, sometimes can't.
Anyway if I really want to make something to be free, there is now way I
would forbid the usage of it. I haven't used the GPL for the last few
small educational program I wrote, because of copyright. I give them
freely. Ok, those are nothings in the profession, but the principle is
given.
Another thought. If a company uses GPL programs as tools to make something
not a software for what other purpose it colud have than grove money, it
have the right. But a programmer who make software, don't have the right.
So than why isn't forbidden the useage in all way that leads to direct
profit? On this way we are going to forbid everything.
Just a joke: what was the first? The egg or the chicken?
Peter
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
