🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <862l2c$m9m$3@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Greg Alexander <galexand@sietch.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>In article <860dn3$bs1$2@justus.ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>>In article <c8Og4.77$5A4.687@burlma1-snr2>,
>>	Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>>> In article <pw-1701001835590001@166.84.250.180>,
>>> Paul Wallich <pw@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>The worker is, however, quite capable of agreeing not to exercise a
>>>>contractual right in return for compensation.
>>> 
[snip]
>Do you really think that foo hacked at bar for the last 3 years just so
>that YOU could get paid for it? 

 Speaking personally, I hack things to make the world a better place -
I don't care if anyone gets paid for it :-).

[snip]
>not becomes much less relevant.  If you aren't giving to the community,
>though, then you getting paid is absolutely disgusting and completely
>disenheartening.

 I think there's an issue of quantum here - clearly the software
author has a moral right to be rewarded for his effort, but equally
clearly, the contractor has put in effort too, in finding and
customising the solution, and he deserves to be rewarded to that, so
I think you're being a mite unfair here.

 Anyway, the GPL seems to specifically indicate that this kind of
behaviour is legitimate, otherwise it would have required anyone
who redistributed to redistribute to the public, not just to whoever
they decide to. If the original author wanted to exclude this kind 
of use, he should've used a different licence.


Richard.
-- 
Principles are things that everyone thinks everyone else should have.