> > Its really very simple. The GPL requires you provide any contributions > > under a licence that makes them free. > > You mean restricted, don't you? If you are at the point where you conclude that people type the reverse of the word they mean you have serious problems. > something better? Any why assume that it would necessarily be charged > for? There are plenty of examples of non-GPL'd code that is freely > available and no evidence that it can't stay that way. There are also very large numbers of examples where key parts did so, particularly with modular code such as an OS. > It is not illegal, but it takes code that permits future innovation and > turns it into something that restricts it, harming everyone in the > process. And the GPL exists to stop someone taking code and turning it into something that restricts further, that is the heart of what it does, which makes your delusions even stranger. > What? Competition is a good thing, and necessary for freedom and > innovation. Preventing it is an act of restriction, not freedom. A competing book is not the another authors book reprinted and the money pocketed. An innovative painting is not a copy of an existing work. Alan
