🚀 go-pugleaf

burley@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
> The "letter" of the GPL prevents you from taking GPL-protected software and
> reselling it as your own, without source code, and/or with restrictions on
> its further use beyond those of the original GPL.  (Essentially.)

Right.  So why is reimbursement of a GNU program's original author (by means
of releasing the changed sources) legally required if I *sell* or
*distribute* modified GNU software, but not if I *use* modified GNU software?

I'm not damaging the author's income by selling the software, since he
doesn't want money for it.  I'm not damaging the author's freedom to do what
he wants with his program.  I'm not preventing people from obtaining the
source code to the free version of the program.

I *am* making money partly from the work of others, but clearly the FSF isn't
opposed to this since it suggests that one can earn a living from supporting
other people's GNU programs.

So what *is* the essential difference which requires this reimbursement?

It seems to me that the FSF likes people to have source code, and dislikes
people selling software, and that the GNU licenses are specifically targeted
against people who like to sell software and/or don't like to distribute
source.  Said people are targeted not because they harm the FSF in any way,
but because the FSF believes itself to be on some sort of moral crusade to
force people to make sources available and programs free.


mathew