3 ms·
> Also, people won't voluntarily pay for something they can get for free The GPL seems to be crafted around this fact: > With free software, users don't have
by ddtaylor 5y ago
> Also, people won't voluntarily pay for something they can get for free
The GPL seems to be crafted around this fact:
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
Source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- wmf 5y agoRMS is wrong on this one. You can't come anywhere close to sustaining development on that model.
- ddtaylor 5y agoIt's possible GPL was the wrong choice of license for all that software in that circumstance. How has Linux managed to survive, isn't it licensed as GPL?
- selfhoster11 5y agoLarge corporate contributors are spending resources to keep Linux kernel running, so there's that.
- freemint 5y agoAnd the reason why companies do that and not hire the entire team away (as was done with BSD in the past) is the GPL license. While today's Linux can't get away without company support that support is a consequence of the license. As much as I despise GPL, it allowed projects to stay open even when every core contributor being hired away would be a profitable move for some companies.