3 ms·
Ok, that's a bit different, specially if they mean that in the general, unless they are contributing directly to every single project they package with their di
by lazaroclapp 12y ago
Ok, that's a bit different, specially if they mean that in the general, unless they are contributing directly to every single project they package with their distro and paying every contributor.
They are still within their rights to decide that their add-ons are proprietary non-zero cost software, at least those add-ons that don't link GPL code/modify LGPL code. But if their main value added is indeed modifying GPL code, and they would consider people who share those modifications for free or get them for free from a third party to be "cheating the system", I can see the issue.
- tormeh 12y agoWhy? Developing software requires man-hours, likewise modifying software. It's not wrong to want compensation for that, regardless of license. Or maybe you hold the opinion that everyone who releases software under the GPL are suckers who shouldn't expect anything?
- lazaroclapp 12y agoNo, they still can ask for money. Read my comments above, I actually defend their right to make paid download the default. What they cannot do is take code released under the GPL, themselves likely getting it for free, the accuse anyone who copies their modifications without paying them of "cheating the system". They can even outright sell that software and not allow $0, that's fine, but someone will likely put a mirror up, and that person isn't "cheating the system", is playing by the same rules everyone else is. For the record, I have paid for (some) GPL software, and I still don't think it's any less valid to get it for free (most free software I have ever used is also free as in price, so...).