Re: [tlug] [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

[<burlingk@example.com>]

 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:43:00 +0900, 
 Darren Cook <darren@example.com> wrote 
 in  <468AED14.8030908@example.com>:
 
>
> There are plenty out there, including a lot of university 
> students who are writing quality code but wasting half the 
> effort by releasing as GPL. I had an email discussion with a 
> free software advocate recently who declared my use of 
> liberal-open-source-license code in a commercial environment 
> was stealing.


I don't think it is a waste of time to release under the GPL
in general.  It is just version 3 that I highly dislike.  :P

As for stealing, how is it stealing to use software in a manner
which the licenses web site specifically said it encouraged?

Most of the licensing pages, including the GPL site claim to
encourage the use of their software in a commercial environment.

The generally even go as far as to state that internal corporate use
does not constitute distribution for the purpose of release of
modified sources under the license, since a corporation is a
single legal entity.

If the people who create and write the licenses go to so much
trouble to encourage corporations to use software under those
licenses, then how is it stealing for someone to do so?

If the person who creates the software does not want the
program to be used in such a way, then they should choose a
License that fits their desires as well as their needs.  It is
also possible with some licenses to add clauses to clarify what
they want.  The GPLv2 for instance allowed this, whereas the
GPLv3 specifically prohibits this.  You cannot use GPLv3 without
changing it and calling it something else if you wish to prohibit
commercial use of your software.

Whatever the case, by using a permissive license, you are giving
permission to do anything allowable under that license.  This means
that theft is only possible if they do things outside the terms of
the license agreement.