hi patrick,<br><br>I think you may have misread the article it's not about selling software, but about withholding updates on bugs .. i.e. some info is no longer shared with competitors ...<br><br>this may or may not be justifiied but is a separate issue<br>
<br>Michel<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Patrick Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agnucius@gmail.com">agnucius@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <a href="http://press.redhat.com/2011/03/04/commitment-to-open/" target="_blank">http://press.redhat.com/2011/03/04/commitment-to-open/</a><br>
><br>
</div>Their actions are well within the constraints of the GNU GPL.<br>
<br>
In other words, they are doing nothing illegal.<br>
<br>
<br>
And I'm sure Richard Stallman would approve, since he is the<br>
originator of the GNU GPL and has used it sell software.<br>
<br>
"""I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free<br>
software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted<br>
one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software<br>
distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today<br>
distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.""" --<br>
<a href="http://GNU.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html" target="_blank">http://GNU.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html</a><br>
<br>
In other words, they are doing nothing immoral (at least within the<br>
thinking of the godfather of Free Software).<br>
<br>
<br>
I personally don't see what the supposed problem is.<br>
<br>
Why should selling Free Software be considered troublesome?<br>
<br>
Do you realize no software license qualifies as "Free Software", (by<br>
the FSF) or as "Open Source" (by the OSI) unless it allows for<br>
commercial distribution - including the ability to charge for that<br>
service?<br>
<br>
<br>
This is really just part of the answer to the question of how artists<br>
can cover the costs of "immaterial production".<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>