On 9/7/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:29 pm, Mohan Nayaka wrote:
Hi all Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ?
Are u trolling?.
No intention at all of trolling.
But i'll let that pass once.
Thanks
NEVER use the term viral. A virus infects you without your consent. when u use gpld software i presume you read the licence which is clear about what u do and dont do with that piece of code. So it is NOT VIRAL.
By "viral" i only meant that aspect of GPL which requires any derived work to be distributed with the source code. yes, "viral" has this negative association that I didn't think of.
That is, is the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected to the author?
No u dont pay the author anything. You are free to charge whatever u please without having to pay any one anything.
Thanks for the clarification.
And tell your colleuges to go back to their worm hole if they dont have the smarts to make a thriving business out of gpld software - speaks volumes about the shallowness of the code and business model. You can compare it to matchsticks (or any other commodity) very useful, simple design, can be made by anyone, can be given away free too but yet matchsticks is a billion dollar industry.
-- Rgds JTD
Regards, Mohan S N