EU software patent law faces axe 811
 |
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:35:18 +0000, billwg If it's locked into proprietary form, the developer cannot alter...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:52:21 +0000, billwg
I don't see where it removes the freedom of the users and developers in any way, shape, or form. You are being intellectually dishonest to buttert that...
The GPL is designed to *keep* the software Free, so that it can't be made un-Free.
FreeBSD is a derivative of the old BSD, and is different in several ways from Linux. Its license reflects its origins. BSD-ers prefer it to the GPL, which is entirely their business.
I think the answer is
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:10:53 +0000, billwg What 'better way' ae you talking about? That's really no different from Did I say anything about being proud of...
What cultists are you talking about? I don't know of any. And the GPL wasn't written *for* Linux, it's merely the license which is deemed best for it to be released under. Public domain software licenses don't protect the software sufficiently.
No, he did not. You Wintrolls seemed fixated on monetary rewards, even when it's explained to you over and over that money is not the only way to reward developers. And Rick said he paid for distros.
That may be true in your world. But we aren't talking about Windows.
You still have not proved that. Not even close.
You are wilfully and woefully mis-informed.
Nothing to say?
The developer is getting what he wants - he's getting to write code for people who want to use it, to be part of a free-ranging, world-wide community, to have fun, to create good software. For many 'hackers', the writing of good, elegant, usable code is an end in itself, an artform. But he's getting to write it for users eager to have it and grateful for it.
You really are a poo, aren't you? It matter not one bit why he paid. He paid. Yet you continue to call him 'freeloader'. In my book, that makes you dishonest.
-- Kier