On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:58 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:35 +0930, Tim wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:54 -0700, jdow wrote: > > > Note that there is nothing WRONG with it being a hobby or with > > > hobbies in general. But to take it more seriously than you might > > > take a model railroad or a hand made remote controlled B-52 model > > > with real jet engines and all is silly. > > > > There are different computer systems around, some more geared towards > > only being profitable towards larger corporations, others not. If you > > want to make money from a product, you have to be sensible about which > > product you work with. This is no different than any other industry. > > > > You can't demand that you must be able to make money from something just > > because you want to. Heck, I can learn how to make soap, but I couldn't > > possibly compete with Lux or Palmolive, on a backyard creator scale. > > > No, but if I put serveral man months into producing a new software > product and I am not singularly wealthy I might want to feed my family > and get soem money back for selling my output . A GPL licence does not > allow me to od that. > Would we have linux kernels if there wasn't a company willing to pay > Linux kernel developers to do that job without demanding that revenue be > realized from their work. ---- Dude - you can sell GPL software that you write...there's no restriction against that...only that you make the source code available for no more than the handling costs. I guess that people can be smart enough to write software but not smart enough to understand the implications of a license. Craig
