Posted on 05/03/2005 5:36:11 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Let's give out the whole story, shall we? I know you (GE) are not pro-GPL, and are in fact very rabidly anti-GPL, but let's at least discuss facts here.
First of all, the author must actively decide to choose the GPL, rather than another license. So the author is perfectly aware of what he is doing and it is his/her choice. S/He has made the choice to distribute in that fashion.
The GPL requires that the source code for GPL'ed applications be supplied in addition to any binaries you distribute. Note it does not mean give them away to anyone who asks for the source--just to those people you've distributed the binaries to. So if you decide to sell your GPL'ed code, you sell the binaries, and supply the source code with it. The buyer is then free to distribute the source to whomever he wants to. He cannot, however, distribute the binaries without also supplying the source.
So to answer your question, yes, if you GPL your code, once it's released others can redistribute it for free without a dime back to you.
Let's face facts here--if someone GPL's their code, they are not looking to get rich off of it in the first place, so why is it a big deal (to third parties) if the author chooses not to profit from it?
Don't fall for the implication that you cannot legally sell GPL'ed code. It may not be practical, but it's not illegal.
Also, there are plenty of big money producing applications that depend on GPL'ed code, and you are using at least a few of them right now. I guarantee it. GE just doesn't like the fact that the GPL is useful.
Hence the term "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".
Of course, we expect nothing else from you. I see you're still Mr. Johnny One Note. Let's see... out of the last 100 posts by you, on 26 separate threads, there was a grand total of one post that wasn't of a 'defend microsoft' or slam open source and IBM nature. Not only that, but you managed to sneak in a post calling a Freeper "voodoo priest of the gay pedophiles." Folks like you giver Trolls a bad name.
MS doesn't have a long history of Chicom support, in fact that relationship is very tenuous due to the lack of Chicom respect for intellectual property value, and China's announcement that Linux (free copy of Red Hat they've renamed Red Flag) is their official government operating system. As for IBM, they couldn't be further in collusion right now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300424/posts
Yeah--it is. The court's just going through the motions now.
Nope, I'm just pointing out you aren't fully disclosing the sneaky terms of your product you wish to enforce on others.
No one is forced to release software they have written under the GPL. It is strictly voluntary.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Blah blah blah, more twisting and cover up. Bottom line, if you are attempting to sell that code to anyone, you have to also be giving it away for free. That's why CentOS can get a free copy of Red Hat, strip the name off of there, and then give it to others without a single royalty to Red Hat. They aren't nearly the first to do it either, the Chinese government has been renaming Red Hat to Red Flag for years now.
I've got to go back to work, but you're welcome to try to through some smoke screen up like the others keep trying to cover up the tricks of the GPL. But I will be back to expose them, just like always.
So you're saying that Red Hat is a victim?
They most certainly do have to give that software away for free, if they dare try to sell it. It's called "distributing" it to your "community", as if you didn't know.
Absolutely. Their software is in use by millions that don't pay them for it, total revenues are pathetic compared to the number of users. Many others aren't as foolish, especially if they saw the Chinese government stealing their product and renaming it Red Flag instead.
Could you write in complete, grammatically correct English sentences, please?
I have no idea what the gibberish you are vomiting means.
Heh. You really have no experience here, do you? CentOS is not the same quality as RedHat Enterprise Linux. No one in their right mind would use CentOS as a replacement for RHEL. There are actual differences in quality, such as RHEL has better hardware detection. RHEL WS automatically detected and correctly configured my 21.3" LCD and video card, CentOS 4.0, using the same packages did not. I got 1600x1200x24bit with RHEL, I got 800x600x16bit max on CentOS. It was so lame I didn't even bother much with it after that.
We use RHEL over CentOS here because of the support. RHEL has a full time team keeping it maintained properly, CentOS is nothing more than a cheap repackaging that won't be supported if the exrement hits the fan.
But then again, I suppose you knew all of that from experience..
So. Those business owners--those successful business owners--had no idea what people would do to their product once they decided to produce a distribution of Linux?
That's why you work for someone else, dude. You have no concept of business planning.
I don't know whether this case will simply get laughed out of court, or whether Wallace will be hit with a hefty contempt charge for wasting everyone's time. Such uncertainty, I tell you.
Godwin in only 2 posts. I'm disappointed, usually your inane trolling is *slightly* more coherent.
Blah blah blah you are speaking quite ignorantly here. There is very little difference between 99% of the packages in RHEL and the standard packages you could find by building from source. RHEL is a complete package that is built around guaranteed support. CentOS is no replacement and hasn't hurt RedHat. Show me were CentOS is actually digging into RedHat and replacing RHEL outside of individual users who are too cheap to buy RHEL.
RedHat is able to differentiate itself because of the non-GPL IP it owns. They recently won a pretty sweet contract to help support the DIA's certificate verification system using formerly Netscape software which they are now actively maintaining. CentOS has not a bloody thing on them in the areas that count.
But..but..but..GE said it was just stripping off logos and such! You mean RHEL actually comes with non-GPL packages that aren't included in other products?
What does this mean for his beloved Red Flag argument? Could that be the reason why Beijing has recently signed a Windows agreement with MS instead of using Red Flag?
Oh no! < /sarcasm >
Well gosh, maybe if you don't want that to happen you shouldn't GPL your code.
Er, RedHat only exists because they themselves use code that was written by others and made available under the GPL. "Their" product isn't really theirs...they took an existing open source product, polished it up and added in a handful of enhancements, and began branding it as their own. You argue that the GPL hurts Red Hat, but the simple truth is that without the GPL Red Hat wouldn't even exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.